--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:
> >... three velar
> > series (*K, *K', *Kw) which would point to the palatalisation and
> > labialisation of velars being the way of preserving the
distinctions of
> > prior neuter-front-back vowel which have all collapsed to *e, ..
>
> Just a thought - if you suggest **/ka, ke, ko/ > */ke, k^e, kWe/,
why did
> this not also happen with **/ta, te, to/ and **/pa, pe, po/ etc,
which can
> equally well be palatalised or labialised. If a collapse could be
tolerated
> after a non-velar consonant, why did it have to be preserved after
a velar?
I'm surprise Miguel hasn't replied to this. He believes that these
contrasts were maintained for a while, but also says that such
contrasts are clearer with velars. Word finally at least, Miguel
proposes **ti > *y (if I remember correctly), **tu > *sW, and
generally that **pu > **pWV, with *pW then resolving to *p or *kW.
He gives some Nostratic evidence in support of the latter in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/14952 . He also
reckons palatalisation / labialisation affected most consonants - he
adduces **l^ > *l or *y in the root for 'liver', and has found signs
of **n^> *y. There's a very brief discussion, but at least a list,
at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/9530 .
Richard.