At least Miguel is brave enough to respond to the challenge:
>That's a bit too easy: Luwian is not a satem language.
Thanx Miguel :)
Yes, I was expecting that, but if I recall, Luwian "satemisation" was
discussed before and is inconclusive. I believe there were references
to how French has "satemized" velar stops even though French is
assuredly not a satem language. Therefore, we had left it as
inconclusive, didn't we? Although, unless I'm mistaken, aren't there
some who consider Luwian as a language derived from a satemized
segment of Anatolian? Like Vittore Pisani? Even so, what attested
IE language shows *k^? None. Some may show a satemized
*c^~*s^ or a centum *k, but never a palatal velar stop.
>In a system with palatal and velar stops, there is to my knowledge no
>tendency, nor would one expect there to be, to back the palatals so that
>they merge with the velars.
Oh Miguel, now you've gone and strengthened the uvular camp again.
At least give the Palatalites a chance to defend themselves :)
>Of course a system with palatal*ized* consonants always has a potential to
>lose the palatalization, so it matters whether we consider *k^ to be a
>palatal stop (IPA /c/), or a palatalized /k'/.
Isn't *k^ supposed to be a _palatal_ (not palatalized) stop since it is
accepted that there is no obvious automatic trigger that would
cause this palatalization? We find the phoneme next to *o or *u as well
as *e or *i so we know that vowels have nothing to do with it in Proto-IE.
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE 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