Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1)

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 23:40:32 +0000, elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:

>--- 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?

It *is* the same. The satem shift is phonologically neutral.

>And if that evidence is any good
>should it not be taken seriously here as well showing us that the
>palatals were not palatal?

The evidence is that in the satem languages the palatals were palatal. It
would have been nice if this had been the result of a push chain, caused by
the merger of *k and *kW, but Albanian and Armenian exclude that
possibility (unless one wants to split the satem phenomenon into 2 or 3
separate developments).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...