Mate:
>I still think "my" solution is better than yours.
Ugh. This reminds me of grade 3 class and then I'm supposed to stick
my tongue out at you in defiance. The "reflection"of uvularity versus
palatality is really beside the point because palatality is satem-specific,
not attributable to IE itself. You're therefore basing your view on
nothing other than the assumption that palatals existed in centum
languages. Granted, perhaps we have an equally grand assumption in
the uvular theory (that centum lgs once had a uvular *q), however
we gain a typologically _stable_ system for an equal amount of
assumption.
However, can we even call the uvular *q a mere assumption when
*e is so infrequent next to traditional *k that it suggests strongly
a lowering of the vowel as with *h2, probably also uvular? This
phenomenon _supports_ the marked value of traditional *k whereas
nothing at all supports the view that *k was ever palatal in IE itself.
It's clear what the optimal theory is.
>And we know from Albanian that *k : *kw : *k' system *did exist*
So? I didn't say it didn't! Why are you trying to convince me of things
that I already agree with you on? If you'd please follow this uvular
train of thought you'd realize that one would interpret all satem languages
as having _fronted_ the non-labial velars: *k > *k^, *q > *k -- An
unstable system. Yes, dagnammit, yes, Albanian has a palatal *k.
But that means nothing. That proves that satem dialects had palatal
*k AFTER the dissolution of IE but what proves that _IE_ itself had
a palatal *k? Nothing. Back to square one.
>But I do not deny that! That is the very reason why it collapsed in
>*all* IE languages.
But only if we assume that all of the centum languages once had
palatals despite lack of evidence. That's alotta assumption for this
wonderful anti-tendency theory of yours to handle. It collapses
under the weight of logic.
>Typology can be very useful but sometimes it can get in our way.
Only if you think logic gets in the way too. Tendencies are tendencies.
We need to acknowledge whether a theory flies against them and
if they do (and the palatal view does), we need to find ways of
either remedying those theories or properly explaining how they
must have violated these tendencies. Neither has been done so far.
So here's my challenge to anyone listening:
gLeN's CHALLENGE:
---------------------------
If you can answer why we must reconstruct palatals in IE by using
not only satem evidence but _centum_ evidence as well, or by
showing some peculiarity of IE phonotactics perhaps that shows
the palatal nature of IE *k, by all means, speak! I would really like
to know why we must accept palatal velars in Proto-IE itself.
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 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