Glottalic Theory - Objections

Objections

The primary objection to the Glottalic Theory is the alleged difficulty in explaining how the sound systems of the attested dialects were derived from a parent language in the above form. If the parent language had a typologically unusual system, like the traditional p-b-bh, then it might be expected to collapse into more typical systems, possibly with different solutions in the various daughter languages, which is what one finds. For example, Indo-Aryan added an unvoiced aspirate series (ph), gaining an element of symmetry; Greek and Italic devoiced the murmured series to a more common aspirate series (bh to ph); Iranian, Celtic, and Balto-Slavic deaspirated the murmured series to modal voice (bh to b); and Germanic and Armenian chain-shifted all three series (p to f, bh to b, b to p). In each case, the attested system represents a change that could be expected from the proposed parent. Now, if the system were typologically common, as proposed by the glottalic theory, then it might be expected to be stable and, therefore, to have been preserved in at least some of the daughter languages, which is not the case: no daughter language preserves ejective sounds where the glottalic theory postulates them. Glottalic proponents respond that, if Proto-Indo-European did not have true ejectives but rather some less stable kind of glottalic consonant, their loss would be more understandable; but this undercuts many of the original motivations of the glottalic theory, which are based on ejectives (rather than glottalized consonants) and on the idea of a typologically natural (hence stable) system. However, there are languages where ejective consonants have voiced allophones, such as Blin and Kw'adza, and this has been suggested as an "empirical precedent" for the Glottalic Theory.

The typological underpinnings of the Glottalic Theory itself have also been questioned, for instance recently by Barrack.

Additionally, if traces of glottalic stops can be found in separate branches such as Italic and Indo-Iranian, the change of */p’/, */t’/, */k’/ to */b/, */d/, */g/ must have occurred independently in each IE branch after their separation from the Proto-Indo-European matrix. Taking these as identical but independent innovations would, according to traditional models of sound change, be an astonishing coincidence, which most linguists would find very hard to believe. However, it cannot be assumed that Proto-Indo-European was a uniform language, and presumably a putative shift from ejective to voiced stops was already present as variation at an early stage. Kortlandt also points out that the change from aspirated to plain voiced stops, which is likewise required as an independent change in numerous Indo-European branches under the traditional model, is not attested elsewhere and is typologically suspect.

A compromise viewpoint would be to see the original formulation of Glottalic Theory (with ejective stops) as representing an earlier stage in the history of Proto-Indo-European, which would have undergone a period of internal evolution into a stage featuring unstable voiced glottalized stops, before branching out into the daughter languages. This would explain the root restrictions in Proto-Indo-European, the near-universal loss of glottalic consonants in the daughter languages, and the lack of *b in the traditional system.

A scenario of glottalic framework in pre-Proto-Indo-European, although possible, is at present unprovable by the methods of historical linguistics due to the uncertainty concerning the possibility of other languages or language families being related to Proto-Indo-European, which might be used as corroborating evidence; and in practical terms, it is irrelevant for the traditional reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European that describes only its latest stage (the so-called "Late Proto-Indo-European"). However, Kortlandt suggests that voiced aspirate was probably not in Indo-European before the division into the branches.

Fallon has reviewed and discussed the arguments for and against the ejective model of Proto-Indo-European consonantism and has concluded that most of the objections raised against the Glottalic Theory are specious.