Re: a discussion on OIT

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

>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 7:19 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: a discussion on OIT
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jsjonesmiami" <jsjonesmiami@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
> > wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> D) There were originally velars, which had allophones c^e/ko etc,
> and labiovelars, which had allophones ke/kWo etc. Both satem and
> kentum languages got rid of the allophone alternation in paradigms,
> the satem languages by generalizing the former allophone, the kentum
> ones by generalizing the latter.
>
> I've tried to sketch how it could be done

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/PIEstops/PIEstopsCurrent.html

> it's definitely not definitive. Please ignore the gunk at the
> bottom.
>
>
> Torsten
>
> ***
>
> Patrick:
>
> We see now how inappropriate it is to call [k] a velar. It is a
> dorsal which, by the influence of the following vowel, could be
> actually stopped at a palatal position, palato-velar, or velar
> position.
>
> PIE 'palatals' derive from _dorsals_ + *e/*i.
>
> PIE 'velars' derive from _dorsals_ + *o/*u and *a.
>
> PIE 'labiovelars' are _not_ the corresponding dorsal + *o/*u but
> derive from dorsal fricatives ([*G/*x]).
>
> ***

This might be read as if you conclude that from something I wrote.
If so, I don't recognize it.


Torsten