From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 40078
Date: 2005-09-17
>>> Or not. I still don't get how do you explain Luwian withI think that you've misunderstood Glen: as I understand it,
>>> your theory?
>> In the same way as anything else. All we are doing is
>> changing the "symbol": *k^=>*k, *k=>*q. That's it. All
>> the previous explanations for Luwian or any language you
>> can think of in IE linguistics are still in effect. It's
>> just that we derive the attested results from a plain *k
>> (instead of palatal *k^) or a uvular *q (instead of plain
>> *k) instead.
> Wait a minute. You *are* aware that Luwian shows different
> outcomes for *k, *k' and *kW consistently (k, z and kw)?
> You just *cannot* explain beginning with just *k and *q.