> >
> >You propose that the plain *k-series are derived from pre-PIE
> >uvulars *q etc. I believe they occur only in loanwords. Can you
> >propose a way to decide which alternative is true?
>
> Sure. *k occurs in the PIE diminutive suffix *-(i)ko-, so
> that's one certain case of not a borrowing.
>
Ahem. *-(i)ko is not borrowed because it is PIE. I think this is
circular. You left out the proof.
I know Trask argues *-ko can't be borrowed from a hypothetical Proto-
Vasconic since its functions in PIE (as reconstructed, with *k) and
Basque are too different. But consider the loan in Swedish
(presumably from student slang) of Latin sg.nom. or pl.dat.,abl. -is
in
funkis (< funktionalism)
skakis (< inf. skaka "shake") "nervous"
fjortis (< fjorton "fourteen") "teenybopper"
dagis (< daghem) "kindergarten"
kändis (< känd "known") "celebrity"
in other words, what was an inflectional ending in the donor
language can be used as a suffix of nouns, verbs, adjectives and
numerals in the borrowing language;
and
-mik, instrumental case ending in Greenlandic, used to mark the
indefinite object in "they drink coffe", loaned into Danish as a
nominal suffix in 'kaffemik' "kaffeeklatsch", extended to 'pumpemik'
(says my informant, I'll leave the translation to the imagination).
As to whether a loan was possible: Before 1500 BCE, when the IA-
speakers invaded India, all IE languages were within reasonable
distance by sea, seen from the Mediterranean, or slightly outside it.
As I see it, I asked you whether it was necessary to posit a *k-
series. You answered by proving it was possible. That doesn't answer
my question.
Torsten