Jens:
>I think this causes problems for the Centum languages. I do not
>much like the uvular value you are led to ascribe to the "plain velars".
>It is a phonetic value we never find in the daughter languages,
>posited *against* their unan�mous testimony.
This seems to be the only argument against *q. On the other hand,
what we gain from it is a sound system that now conforms to
markedness and is no longer problematic. The lack of *q in centum
languages is trivial, since the merger of /k/ and /q/ is common enough,
while the fronting of the system in the satem dialects is also sensible.
As for any link between former vowels and *k/*q/*kW, much of it
has been destroyed. First off, there was never any velar palatalization
up to IE and if *k^ is in reality *k, then palatalization only starts during
satemization. Only labialization occured via, as was mentioned earlier,
the transference of the roundness of the vowel to the velar stop
(some 4500 years before IE, afaic). The rareness of *a is largely due
to the ablauting between *e and *o. A vowel shift of *o from *a
takes care of this problem, implying an earlier alternation of *e and *a.
That way, *a wasn't always so rare.
The IE instances of *a that did exist and that weren't caused by
uvular colouring (by either *q or *x) were probably caused by the
preservation of *a in certain environments which avoided the vowel
shift, possibly neighbouring labial consonants (*m,*bH,*p,*w,*hW,*kW),
a kind of dissimilatory avoidance of rounding. At least that was my theory
last time I left it. That would explain etyma like *markos (*a avoiding
expected *o next to *m) or *wastu. Of course, with that last idea,
maybe someone knows something more.
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca