On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:24:42 +0100, Mate Kapovic <
mkapovic@...> wrote:
>From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, [] but if I recall, Luwian "satemisation" was
>> > discussed before and is inconclusive.
>>
>> It is accepted as operative before front vowels. Thus, the Luvian
>> branch of Anatolian distinguishes palatals and plain velars before
>> front vowels. A case in point would be zart- 'heart' vs. kis- 'to
>> comb' from *k^erd- and *kes- respectively.
>
>And with this we have the evidence that *k' > k in Hittite so there is no
>much point in saying that *k' simply cannot become *k because it is very
>unlikely.
Luwian doesn't prove much, beyond the fact that *k^ and *k must still have
been distinguished in Proto-Anatolian (so no change there from PIE).
The evidence is "inconclusive" with respect to the question whether *k^ > z
occurs unconditionally in Luwian (thus Melchert), or only before front
vowels (as defended above by Jens). Melchert's examples, by the way, are:
PA *k^o/*k^(o)i 'this' > za-/zi-
PA *k^e:- (i.e. *k^ey-) 'lie' > zi:-
PA *k^r.d- 'heart' > za:rt- za-r{ai}-t(V)-
PA *-sk^e/o (iterative) > -zza, -za
PA *-i(s)k^o- (suffix) > -izza / -i-za
PA *k^won- 'dog' > zú-w{ai}-n(i)-
PA *ek^wo- 'horse' > á-zú-(w{ai})-
If the change was unconditional, the Luwian shift is identical to that of
the satem languages, which is not surprising, given the fact that PA is
identical to PIE regarding the *k ~ *k^ opposition.
If the change was conditional, before front vowels only, Luwian represents
a third option, intermediate between centum and satem. In the light of the
three interpretations I mentioned the other day (palatal/velar,
palatalized/unpalatalized (velar), velar/uvular), if Luwian indeed has *k^
> z only before front vowels, the palatal/velar interpretation is again the
most problematical: it is only compatible with an unconditional satem
shift. If *k^ was palatalized /k'/, one might imagine that the
palatalization was lost before non-front vowels, but then it does seem
strange that *k was *not* palatalized before front vowels at the same time
[*]. If *k^ was velar, palatalization before front vowels is fully as
expected, and if *k was uvular, that would neatly explain why it was not
palatalized before front vowels.
[*] cf. Polish palatalization of /k/ before secondary front vowels (/e/ <
/U/, /i/ < /y/ [not, however, /e~/ < /o~/]), simply because /k'/ existed in
the phonological system.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...