> A development k > s is much more common than a development s > k, so
> *k(^) would be the preferred reconstruction even if there were no
> other evidence available (which there is, but it's almost six in the
> morning here).
I'd be very interested in hearing more about the other evidence --
after you've gotten more sleep! :-)
> How does Beekes question Hittite?
In "Comparative IE Linguistics", page 31, he says:
"... Hittite makes a very archaic impression owing to its simplicity,
and its verb could represent a system older than that of Sanskrit or
Greek. This is the reason why it was thought that Hittite must have
split off much earlier from the other languages. This is called the
Indo-Hittite hypothesis.... This would mean that the other IE
languages underwent a common development which Hittite did not
undergo -- otherwise the the hypothesis has no import. I am not yet
convinced by it: Hittite is fraught with too many fundamental
problems to justify such a far-reaching conclusion as this one....
Hittite has lost much of its oldest data (probably under the
influence of people who originally spoke another lanuage), so that
its simplicity need not suggest antiquity, but could rather be owing
to loss."
If Hittite is not as old as thought, that would make Indo-Iranian
perhaps the oldest language (although I'm not suggesting it is PIE or
anything.) Since IE studies are commonly admitted to have focused
more on European (i.e. Centum) languages and since most IE languages
are Centum (Nichols explains how this is predicted by their being at
the periphery of the spread zone), then perhaps the preponderance of
Centum k > s examples are an artifact of the methodology and PIE
originally had more satem influence than is currently reconstructed.
I'd be interested in y'all's comments on this possibility.
Respectfully,
Michael Donne, PhD