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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

> I know that. You're now confusing the nature

of the item with the

> manner in which we evaluate it.

No, I am not. You were confusing these things and saying that it is not
logical that PIE has *k - *k' - *kw. Maybe you got carried away in writing.

> >I

wouldn't say we all agree on this. The reconstructions look vaguely

> >similar but no so much.
>
> You merely deny it because it suits

you. The numerals "six" and "seven"

> aren't merely "look-alikes" to their

Semitic kin. They are quite bluntly

> loaned. The donor is Semitic because

*septm contains fossilized

> Semitic grammar and is also found in a wealth

of other proto-languages.

> If you can deny this, you must be either

ignorant of the entire facts or

> are just ignoring what doesn't conform

to your preconceived notions.

I never said *septm is not a loan from Semitic. I totally agree with that
and I have also written so before on this list in another topic. I just said
that number 6 cannot be accounted for as Semitic in the same manner as
number 7. The case of 6 is not so clear.

> Because /S/ sounds far more like /s/ or /h/ (which IE had)

than /k'/.

> Sound it out for yourself. From Latin to French, palatal /k/

first became

> /tS/, not /S/. In fact Semitic *s^ seems to be interpretted

as IE *sw.

> This makes sense since the added labial semivowel is either

> reinterpretation of the tongue retraction in Semitic or Semitic

*s^

> was pronounced with automatic rounding as we in fact find in

English.

OK. Then explain why do we have a *k sound instead of *s^? I think that *s^

> *k is even more difficult than *s^ >

*k'.

Mate