From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 57361
Date: 2008-04-15
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Horse Sense (was: [tied] Re: Hachmann versus Kossack?)
>
> > ***
> >> The idea that the P.I.E. velar stops derived from earlier
> >> fricatives can't be made on the basis of cognates, however,
> > >since P.I.E. has no known relatives to provide those. It's
> > >a matter entirely of internal reconstruction, and I don't
> > >believe anybody's been led to posit pre-P.I.E. fricatives
> > >as the source of P.I.E. velar stops on that basis either.
> > >David
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Patrick:
> > As I have said, the case can be made from cognates if extra-PIE data is
> > permitted to be utilized; ***
>
> Internal IE data show stops were not laryngeals,
> and they seldom alternate together.
> External data confirm that stops were stops,
> and that laryngeals, especially H1, were more weakly articulated
> consonants.
>
> External data, be it Basque, PAA, Uralic, ST, will never transform a
> fricative into a stop in PIE.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ==============
***
Patrick:
I have not disputed nor will I that labio-velar stops existed in PIE.
So your 'refutation' is meaningless to my argument.
I am talking about the parentage of PIE, before these contacts, which has
[x] and [รง] where PIE has *kW and *kW(2).
***