On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:16:31 +0000, Richard Wordingham
<
richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
>I'm surprised Miguel hasn't replied to this.
I wasn't sure I had anything new to add.
The thought that the three-way contrast in the velars (*k, *k^, *kW) is due
to former differences in vocalization (**ka > *ke, **ki > *k^e, **ku >
*kWe), simple and elegant as it may seem, is not tenable for *k and *k^:
the frequency of *k^ is simply too high in comparison with the low
frequency of *k. For the labiovelars (*kW, *gW and *ghW), on the other
hand, there is indeed to my knowledge no other solution than that they
represent earlier plain **k, **g, **gh in the neighbourhood of **u.
As far as I can tell, there were at least four separate
palatalization/labialization events in the prehistory of PIE.
In chronological order:
1) The loss of final vowels **-a, **-i, **-u caused palatalization if the
final vowel had been **-i and labialization if the final vowel had been
*-u.
2) Progressive pal/lab after stressed **ú(:) and **í(:)
3) Regressive pal/lab before **w and **y
4) Regressive pal/lab before **u(:) and **i(:)
The results of the labializations and palatalizations were generally:
Lab Pal
*p *kW --
*bh *ghW --
*m *mW (*w) --
*t *sW (*s) *y
*dh *dh(W) --
*d *d(W) --
*n *mW (*w) *n^ (*y)
*l -- *l^ (*y)
*r -- --
*k/*q *kW --
*gh/*Gh *ghW --
*g/*G *gW --
*x/*X *h3 *h1
*h/*? *h3 --
But there are differences in the working of the four different events (e.g.
(4) CuC -> CWeC, only affected velars and uvulars).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...