From: tgpedersen
Message: 30032
Date: 2004-01-26
>etc),
> > Further, on a Nostratic point of view, the lack of palatals is
> > unproblematical
> > but rather opens the doors for better correlations with language
> groups
> > like Uralic or Tyrrhenian.
> >
>
> I have a rather small brain which has room only for the simplest
> theories (which won't take up so much space on my harddisk).
> Therefore I designed one. It goes like this.
>
> The were two stop series in PIE, plain (*k etc) and uvular (*q
> later palatal (*k^ etc) and labiovelar (*kW etc). So, where do thelist
> plain stops (*k etc) come from? Well, a long time ago, when this
> discussed it, the thing that kept Piotr from accepting only twostop
> series was that the reconstructed (*k) appeared always(?)before /a/
> in Latin. Now suppose we accept Kuhn's claim that all occurrencesin
> of /a/ date to a certain period in pre-PIE; before that period the
> PIE vowel system was *i, ablaut vowel *a/*& (or *a/*ä), *u; after
> that it was *i, ablaut vowel *e/*o, *u and *a (which all occurred
> loans, either from a pre-PIE stage dialect that PIE conquered instop
> central Europe (that of the Old European river names), or from
> outside Europe (overseas?)), and further that the old plain *k had
> been palatalised by then (spreading from occurrences of it before
> *ä), the we'd have a system that behaved as if it had the three
> series of 'classical' PIE.As to whether the western IE dialects of Latin, Germanic, Celtic