Re: [tied] Wine

On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:16:41 GMT, "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>Using extra-IE evidence as the core of your evidence is foolish.
>What is the evidence _within_ IE?

There is some, as I said. *leikw- < *laipu- vs. *leip- <
*laipa-/laipi-, "remain, stick to", for instance.

Furthermore, sometimes that's just the way it is. There is no
evidence for Verner's law _within_ Germanic, it requires external
comparison with Vedic, Greek, etc. But you have to accept
Indo-European, of course.

>Who says there was even a
>three-way contrast between palatalized, plain and labial in IE? I only know
>of *k versus *kW, or *k^~*s^ versus *k in any given language. Do you have
>strong evidence of a three way contrast [*k^/*k/*kW] in ProtoIE (without
>resorting to extra-IE correspondances)?

Yes, I think there was a three way contrast. There seems to be new
evidence from Luwian (I think), but I haven't been able to look into
that yet.

>Miguel:
>>But there are more phenomena that suddenly begin to look >understandable if
>>we assume palatalized and labialized variants of >the consonants: the *n/*i
>>stems like *poti-/*potn- (< *potn^-), or >the verb *nem- ~ *yem-, some
>>*l/*i alternations such as in the >"liver" word (< *l^a:pwnt-), and maybe
>>even the Caland system (*n -> >-r ~ -n-; *nw > -u ~ -m-; *n^ > -i ~ -n-).
>
>You've accused me of "assumptions"

When?

>and yet here you are saying "...if we assume...".
>Your theory makes nothing understandable.

Discuss the data, then.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...