Re[2]: [tied] IIr 2nd Palatalisation (was: PIE voiceless aspirates)

At 1:13:13 AM on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, Patrick Ryan
wrote:

> From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>

>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
>> <proto-language@...> wrote:

>>> PIE *kw regularly produces OI <c>;

>> Absolutely not. SOME instances of PIE *kW resulted in
>> Sanskrit 'k', but others resulted instead in Sanskrit
>> 'c', wherever a front vowel or *y originally followed.

> How would you explain cá:yati from *kWei-(t-)?

> You think the <a:> represents *e:?

No. He thinks that 'a front vowel ... originally followed',
namely, *ei. (Or possibly *e:y, if I'm reading Pokorny
correctly.) Had you bothered to look at the .jpg that he
recently uploaded to the Files section, this would be clear:

PIE *kWe > Satem *ke after 1st pal. > Satem *k^e after 2nd
pal. > PII *c^a > Vedic c^a.

> Give me an example of PIE *k becomes Old Indian <c>.

You yourself already gave one: camara.

>> Only PIE *k and *kW conflated in a Satem *k, or at least
>> a pre-Indo-Iranian branch of Satem, from which later
>> either a Sanskrit 'k' or a Sanskrit 'c' resulted,
>> depending upon whether a front vowel or *y followed or
>> not.

> Then what, in your theory, is the result of PIE *k^ in
> satem?

See <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/41945>:

*k^ + laryngeal does indeed result in Sanskrit 'š', but
then so does *k^ without a laryngeal

Brian