Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1)

----- Original Message -----
From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:26 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Albanian (1)


> > **ka -> *k
> > **ki -> *k^
> > **ku -> *kW
>
> Yes.
>
> > The problem with such a hypothesis is that then we would expect the
> > frequency of *k^ to be about the same as the frequency of *kW,
> when in fact
> > it's much higher. It is in fact the frequency of *k which is
> comparable to
> > that of *kW, both well below the frequency of unmarked *k^.
>
> No, we should expect the frequencies of the three velar series to
> match that of the earlier vowels as they were before they coalesced.
> How frequent each one was - and how many there were of them - will
> probably remain open for some time. The IE velar system may even be
> the best piece of evidence for now.

I agree. I think I already had a discussion about this with Miguel on
another list. But here is a possible solution: Uralic is probably the most
likely to be genetically related with IE. If we look at Uralic vocalic
system we have there: a; o, u and i, e, ü, ä. And so if
*ka > *k
*ko, *ku > *kw
*ke, *ki, *kü, *kä > *k'
we see how we could get to Miguels
*k^ 12+9+6+3 = 30
*kW 9+3+3+1 = 16
*k 4+3+2+1 = 10
One needs not assume the IE is indeed related to Uralic, just that it is
possible that PIE *k, *k', *kw developed like this (with *k being the rarest
one becoming only from *ka, *kw second rarest because it is form *ko and
*ku, and *k' most common because it is from four different sources, or three
for that matter, it is not important).

Mate