Since Peter was quoting me instead of Mate (a more challengeable opponent
against his and my viewpoint), I assume he must have really lost something
in the detail:
> I lost something here. Why must [k'] be posited for the centum
> languages?
That's the whole point. I don't really know. I myself haven't heard a
really adequate explanation to support palatal velar stops in centum nor
in IE. I must have lost something too. I was responding to Mate, who
seemed convinced that palatal velars existed in IE itself and not just in
satem dialects. I still await something convincing to override the simpler
theory of uvularity.
> This requires both IE dialect groups to have brought [q] forward to [k],
Yep. Sure looks that way. That's why palatals are messy. Let's string 'em
up and hang 'em! Let's rid ourselves of bad phonology!!!
AAAARRRRRRGGGGH!!!
= gLeN