From: tgpedersen@...
Message: 8360
Date: 2001-08-07
> --- In cybalist@..., tgpedersen@... wrote:Does
>
> > So it hinges on the existence of a stage where this merger hadn't
> > taken place? Romance, in its "satemisation" also had kW -> k.
> > the relative ocurrence of these two phenomena in Romance tell us
> > anything of possible temporal sequences of them in the IE
> > satemisation?
> > BTW would you care to elucidate on the fate of k and kW in the
> table
> > you already made?
> >
> > Torsten
--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> What happened in Romance was not "satemisation" but someting much
> more trivial -- palatalisation of velars before front vowels. The
> Satemic shift does not depend on the phonetic environment (*k^ >
> palatal even before back vowels and consonants), and so is a
> different type of process, and Romance parallels are not very
> enlightening.
More trivial??
If satemisation is palatalisation before front vowels + then
regularisation of paradigms it would be pretty trivial too.
>
> In satem languages, *k and *kW simply fell together so early that
> their development is the same in all satemic branches (except
perhaps
> in Albanian, but the evidence is inconclusive) -- that is why my
> table has one column for both.
>
But the whole raison d' for the *k-series, distinct from the *k' and
*kW, apart from the inconclusive Albanian evidence, was that they
went *s in some satem-languages and *k in others? Which is exactly
what you would expect with a sloppy pre-literate generalisation?
> Piotr
>
Torsten
>
>