--- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com, "H.M. Hubey" <HubeyH@M...> wrote:

>
>
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
> > --- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com, "H.M. Hubey" <HubeyH@M...> wrote:
> > >(Personally I would also disallow k>s.)
> >
> > In one fell swoop, yes. However, k > c > tS > S > s is not
> > impossible.
>
>
> Not believable. Most languages have ptksn. It is S that develops

after s.

Non sequitur.

As this pretty much what happened in the development from PIE to
Hindi, I assume you're being deliberately provocative.

For the final stages, which appears to be where your doubt arises, I
will take the example of Shan, a Tai language. I take my examples
from Fang Kuei Li's Handbook of Comparative Tai. I am comparing the
development of sylable-initial consonants only.

Proto-Tai *s, Shan [s_h], Siamese [s], Tai Lue [s], Nung [K]
(voiceless lateral fricative), Po-ai [K]

Proto-Tai *tS, Shan [s], Siamese [tS], Tai Lue [tS], Nung [tS], Po-
ai [S]

Proto-Tai *dZ, Shan [s], Siamese [tS_h], Tai Lue [tS], Nung [tS] or
[S], Po-ai [S].

Proto-Tai *b, Shan [p], Siamese [p_h], Tai Lue [p], Nung [p], Po-ai
[p].

Proto-Tai *d, Shan [t], Siamese [t_h], Tai Lue [t], Nung [t], Po-ai
[t].

Shan [s] is *slightly* palatalised.

Would you care to suggest a correction to Li's reconstruction.

Sanskrit contrasts <s'> = [S] as in _das'a_ 'ten' with [s].
However, while '16' is _so:das'a_ in Sanskrit, the Thai loan word
indicates Pali _so:das-_. From Sanskrit s'(u)va:, g.s.
s'unas, 'dog' we have the Pali diminutive sunakha-. Does not this
satisfy you about the final part of the chain of changes?

Richard.