Re: ka and k^a [was: [tied] *kW- "?"]

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>

wrote:

>
> > > Of course, if no *a's were present in PIE, all the discussion

on

> > > uvular or pharyngeal character of *k/*g/*gh is just groundless.
> > >
> > > Of the previously mentioned by me, Lubotsky gives the

following

> > > reconstructions: *bheH2g^- for bhajati / phagein, *k^eH2d- for
> > > cadere/çad-, *g^heH2n-s- ~ *g^hH2n-s- for goose.
> > >
> >
> > He has to resort to -eh2- 's, if he wants to keep PIE free of
> > loanwords.
>
> I am inclined to take all words with apparently non-

alternating /a/

> to be loanwords borrowed after IE had (re-)phonemicized /a/.
> Interestingly enough, that time was shortly before IE broke apart,
> which means its speakers were already in the process of expanding
> outwards from their ancestral homeland. Coincidence? Perhaps

not...

How about this: (Non-Anatolian) PIE is a trade language, that arose
between (Semitic-speaking?) sea-borne traders and horse-and-cart
locals at the crossing points of Ukrainian rivers. Land-locked
Anatolian was left out of a development that led to (i.a.) the
generation of a feminine in non-Anatolian PIE.

> > The goose is a proven import article too.
>
> What's the proof?
>

There was a discussion of its origin a long time back. I was fairly
certain that it turned out to be a late import, but maybe I'm now
confusing it with the duck? I was going to refer you to L.V.Hayes'
Austric page, but it seems to be gone.
Then there's the missing *gh- in Latin 'anser', -t in OE gant "male
goose" etc.


Torsten