From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 4733
Date: 2000-11-15
>>[...] How do you explain *ek^wos or *kwapnos [w not superscript],No.
>>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 theHas been tried, doesn't work.
>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.