The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
> Jens:
> >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.
>
> Wait a minute now. Of course it would. That is not in opposition
> to the uvular theory at all. Naturally, *k would be easier to

palatalize

> than *q.

That will seem to be correct. I wasn't criticizing the uvular theory
(this time), only rejecting a two-velar basis for Centum. Luwian
plainly demands three. I shall have to say that the restriction to
front-vowel environment I gave seems not to be true (I was confusing
the issue with that of the voiced palatals).

>
> But all this talk gave me another idea that may or may not blow
> people's socks off. Let's say that IE (at say 4500 BCE) had

suddenly

> spread out a bit, leaving a small easterly group with *[k^ k kW]
> (satem), a westerly group with simplified *[k kW]. The group
> was still intact enough to evolve together for another 500 years
> or so. If the above is true about Luwian, then it would seem that
> at least a part of the Anatolian branch had to have been of
> the eastern group where *k^ and *k hadn't merged yet. So
> Luwian would remedy the situation with partial sibilantizing,
> while Hittite, being part of the "centum" side of Anatolian, didn't
> need to deal with the phonological implications of *k^.

I find it hard to accept that inherited distinctions that appear in
Luwian are not to be assigned to Proto-Anatolian. It sounds a bit
like banning the three genders from Proto-Germanic because you don't
have them in English.

Jens