Re: [tied] *kW- "?"

We've had this discussion already but here we go again...

Glenn:

> Peter, you just can't get around markedness. The
> frequency of instances of what you purport to
> be "palatal *k^" is far too numerous in the
> commonmost morphemes of IE to be credible.

Not really. It can easily be explained by some process in pre-PIE and it's
not unusual that languages pass a stage in which they exhibit some
unusual/marked feature. Anyway, the PIE system was clearly not very
stabile (it was not preserved fully anywhere) so we cannot exclude such
'odd' things as *k' being more frequent than *k.

> You
> haven't addressed this most basic point. The
> traditional theory for that reason alone is horribly
> wrong and I've already shown the example of *sweks
> (traditional *swek^s) which we can be sure is a
> Semitic loan, completely lacking palatalization in
> Proto-Semitic *s^idTu-.

So? What's the point here? Nobody is claiming that palatovelars are
ancient in IE.

> It's time to bury tradition.

Or not. I still don't get how do you explain Luwian with your theory? I
won't mention Albanian or Armenian eventhough those are usually discarded
with just by saying that "it's not reliable".

> Still, it has to be done because we've come a long
> way since Pokorny. As Patrick mentioned, we need
> another Pokorny to take time away from her/his busy
> schedule to amass an up-to-date listing. Volunteers?
> :)

Aren't the guys at Leiden doing just that?

Mate