I however consider myself to be anglicizing the whole name, but I certainly agree that saying it with no final /t/ wd be as pretentious as using a uvular r for the word.
I shd think saying it with no final /t/ wd be as pretentious as using a uvular r for the word.
Just as I've blogged before, I still advocate uvular and creaky-voiced phonemes to help rebalance the system and bring it in line with what we currently understand about phonology and its tendencies.
As a recap, I had come to a couple of major revelations on PIE that diverge from the "mainstream" but problematic view:One: The unlikely phonological system can finally be rationalized by turning palatal stops to plain ones and plain stops to uvular ones while shifting phonation to a contrast between creaky and plain voice rather than plain versus breathy.
I would expect a French or German speaker to use a uvular R at the beginning of the family name, a dental L, N and D, and a clear L in the first name, where English speakers would have an approximant R, alveolar L, N, and D, and a dark L.
We can extend this same rule to uvular stops as well.
So that being said, is it too much of a stretch to wonder if perhaps pre-IE was inspired by these languages from the neighbouring Caucasus to adopt uvular phonemes?
Likewise then, we might posit that *ker- is underlyingly an athematic root *qēr- both with an update of plain *k to uvular *q, and athematization of this root à la Jasanoff.
So both uvular stops (the original "non-palatal series" of *k, *g and *gʰ) and *h₂ (a uvular fricative1) colour *e to *a in the same fashion.
And now I will confess some important technical issues concerning the aforementioned uvular proposal for Proto-Indo-European PIE.