Re: [tied] PIE Stop System

Robert Wilson wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:55:20 +0200 Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
> writes:
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:41:59 +0200, Mate Kapovic <mkapovic@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If *k comes from *ka, and *k' not only from older *ki, but also
>> from *ke
>>> (and in parallel maybe besides *kw < *ku also *kw < *ko) it would
>> be
>>> expected that *k would be less frequent than *k' (and *kw).
>>
>> What that shows is that *k^ should have been as frequent as *kW. It
>> isn't:
>> it's much more frequent.
>
> couldn't *e and *i be more frequent than *o and *u, thus making *k^
> more frequent than *kW?

And we close the circle. /k^/and /g^/ by now being suspected to derive
from /k/ & /g/ + a front wovel. In the same manner as later the
"ordinary" palatalisation :-)
If one will show that "kW" and "gW" are in fact the groups "kp" and "gb"
then there is nothing misterious anymore in the Latin "aqua" versus
Sanskirt "apa" and if they are considered today as belonging to
different roots, it will appear they belong to the same root. And of
course the, centum/satem groups will need to be re-defined.

Question: any evidence in Uralic for labiovelars?


alex