Re: [tied] PIE dorsals revisited

I used to side with the two-series camp. I changed my opinion after a heated discussion on this list, where all the pros and cons were reviewed. I believe I started it with the following posting:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/4963

(where the history of the question is discussed)

The discussion continued for some time, and the name of the thread was cjanged in the process, so it may be difficult to follow now.

At present I regard the following interpretation of the three series (exemplified by their voiceless members) as very plausible:

*k^ = [k] (plain velar, no doubt free to develop slightly palatalised allophones)

*kW = [kW] (labiovelar)

*k = [q] (uvular)

This possibility (mentioned in the EIEC) is consistent with the relative rarity of the *k series (by contrast to the strikingly frequent occurrence of *k^) and its occasional "colouring" influence on adjacent vowels (especially in Latin; see the postings referred to above).

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: David Russell Watson

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:38 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Why is PIE more centum than satem?
Here's my understanding of it: All of them were stops in P.I.E. and not affricates like 'ch' or 'ja' (or are you using 'j' as a glide?). *k^, *g^ and *g^h were palatal, at least as far to the front as Eng. /k/ before a front vowel or glide (kin, keep, cube) or maybe a bit further to the front than that, but not too much more fronted, I think, for the reasons given below. *k, *g and *gh were velar, like Eng. /k/ before a central vowel or a consonant (act, flex, caught, cob)* *kW, *gW and *gWh were either velar with additional lip rounding, like Eng. /k/ and /w/ pronounced simultaneously not in sequence, or uvular like Arabic /q/ but with lip rounding. (*note that in my dialect of English the 'au' and 'o' here are low central vowels, not rounded back ones.) Here are my questions about it: Could *k^, *g^ and *g^h have been very much more front than I've described, or have developed out of older velars very much earlier than the break up of P.I.E. without having quickly shifted to affricates once fronted? Don't stops in the post-alveolar, pre-palatal and palatal regions usually quickly shift to affricate pronunciation when the sound system has room for it? The centum reflexes don't allow this series to have already been affricate in P.I.E., do they? Also, when it's suggested that *kW, *gW and *gWh may have been uvular, does this include the possibility that they were pure uvulars originally without any labialization? > So we've got 3 PIE sounds: *k, *kw and *k'? Apparently so. When I subscribed to this list I thought that there were two velar series only. Lehman and Burrow said so, but Piotr has been convinced that there were three, so I don't know what to think. > I assume *k is a normal "k" sound (as imprecise as that is) > what does *k' sound like using Eng, Ger, French or Skt as > examples? k' represents the same sound as k^, doesn't it? And about that, is there some standard system for representing the phonetic symbols that this list uses? Is it described somewhere online? David