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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

> Um, we ARE reconstructing a common system: *[k

q kW]. I hope you

> realize that while Satem was a localized group of

dialects that shared

> a common innovation, "Centum" does not exist as a

single, small dialect

> area. Therefore, it is valid to reconstruct a

common Satem sound

> system that consisted of *[k^ k kW].

OK. I just think it is more logical to assume that it was the common system
and not just common Satem system. My opinion is that there is no Satem group
as a group of closely related PIE dialects. There is just a satem-sound
change of *k' to some kind of *s, *s^, *s etc.

> Unless you see Satem as a

NON-localized group and are willing to

> defend that position, I don't

understand where you're going with this

> arguement.

As I said, I do not accept Satem as a localized group.

> Well, then similarily, the

overwhelming scarcity of *e neighbouring

> *q is "direct attestation" of

an even earlier uvularity in Proto-IE
itself.

It can be but it is not a *direct* attestation because it is also possible
that *q > *k was pre-PIE or that the frequency of *k and *k' can be
explained differently as I have done. Also, many linguists do not accept PIE
*a at all so the roots with PIE *ka are not very convincing.

> In "some" words? Quantify "some".

You are aware of possible

> Indo-Iranian influence, yes?

Others have already given many examples. I don't think that IIr influence is
possible here. But it seems that your Centum is not as strong as you
thought.

Mate