From: Mate Kapovic
Message: 29995
Date: 2004-01-25
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 4:40 AM
Subject: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))
> 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.
I don't think we will ever agree on this but let's go on. My point is
this - because of the "satem" lgs we have to reconstruct the system of *k -
*kw - *k' for the last stage of *some* of the IE lgs. And I see it better to
reconstruct the like system for all lgs than different ones for kentum and
satem lgs. And as there *is* direct attestation of palatalisation and there
is no direct attestation of uvularity the first is more important in my
view.
By the way, according to Melchert, Luwian shows a difference of *k' and *k
in some words (in front of *u at least). The example is zuwi "dog". I just
heard about, so I don't know the details but I will look it up.
Mate