From: Mate Kapović
Message: 30082
Date: 2004-01-27
> Luwian doesn't prove much, beyond the factthat *k^ and *k must still have
> been distinguished in Proto-Anatolian(so no change there from PIE).
> If the change was conditional, before front vowels only, Luwianrepresents
> a third option, intermediate between centum andsatem.
>In the light of thementioned the other day (palatal/velar,
> three interpretations I
> palatalized/unpalatalized(velar), velar/uvular), if Luwian indeed has *k^
> > z only beforefront vowels, the palatal/velar interpretation is again
> mostproblematical: 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
> [*].Why would that be strange? It is more probable that *k' will palatalize
>If *k^ was velar, palatalization before front vowels isfully as
> expected, and if *k was uvular, that would neatly explain whyit was not
> palatalized before front vowels.Yeah, that would be neat but unfortunately there is not a one empyrical