--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
> Distributional evidence suggests that the phonological status of
the PIE
> {*k^, *g^, *g^H} series was "unmarked" -- in other words, that
they were
> "plain" (velar) rather than palatal dorsals.
>
> The Satem shift [produced] a new system:
>
> *k' *k *kW
[...]
Now, what about the "distributional evidence" here? Wouldn't that be
the same as with the PIE system? And if that evidence is any good
should it not be taken seriously here as well showing us that the
palatals were not palatal? It seems to me you have just refuted
reality.
Jens