Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:33:21 -0800 (PST), enlil@... wrote:

>> I don't understand what your problem is. We have Semitic /dc^/
>> or /ds^/, we have PIE /k^s/. What do *you* suggest the
>> development was?
>
>Simple: Semitic *dc^ -> IE *ks. I'm not saying that this is to
>be considered a regular correspondance since *dc^ isn't all
>that common, I'm sure. You are obsessed with explaining
>everything with sound change rules but we just don't need
>that extra assumption here.

What extra assumption? How does my ds^/dc^ > ts > ks differ from your dc^

> ks, except that it makes the development more understandable? Did you

think I was claiming ts > ks as a (pre-)PIE sound law?


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...