Miguel:
>Think. [...]
I do that often :)
>[...] How do you explain *ek^wos or *kwapnos [w not superscript],
>with *k(^) + *w, as opposed to *kw [w superscript]?
That's a simple problem. The term *ek^wos has a palatal *k because of the
preceding *e. If you mean *k^wapnos or rather *k^uapnos, it implies that the
first syllable derives from *k^eu- or maybe *k^au-. If you mean *kuapnos (no
palatalisation), it implies that it derives from *kou-. A verb like *k^eu-
would alternate with *kou-. Verbs like this where the *k is sometimes
palatal, sometimes not, are attested in satem languages like Sanskrit,
showing that the palatalisation stems from the tonal Late IE stage when *e
opposed *o. The *e/*o alternation however only exists in Late IE, not in Mid
IE where we only find the schwa and ONE kind of *k. The *k^ and *k in Late
IE are just allophones of the same phoneme *k, dependent on surrounding
vocalism.
IE *kW, on the other hand, is a single phoneme that was created thousands of
years prior to IE itself because of Steppe *k next to *u. Let me repeat this
(this time by showing *e/*o alternation), a Steppe syllable like *kug would
eventually become IE *kWeghW-/*kWoghW-, *nuk- would become *nekW-/*nokW-,
but Steppe *nik- would become *nek^-/*nok- (<- note the change of
palatalisation).
Thus, there is only a *k/*kW contrast, not a *k^/*k/*kW contrast.
Get it? Good. No more silly talk :)
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com