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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))


>
> Mate:
> >And with this we have the evidence that *k' > k in Hittite so there is no
> >much point in saying that *k' simply cannot become *k because it is very
> >unlikely.
>
> It's not that it CAN'T become such, however why multiply unlikely
> hypotheses?
> We're already dealing with the unlikelihood of a system with *[k^ k kW]
and
> now you want to add more craziness with *k^ > *k. Now the theory has
> gone from "unlikely" to "super-unlikely".

Than how do you explain the difference of Luwian and Hittite? There was *q ~
*k and later, when the Anatolian departed from IE the Luwians decided to
change the *q to *k and *k to *k' whatta coincidence the same as some other
lgs did independantly later?
I only have to have a change *k' > *k in Centum and you have to have *q > *k
in both and *k > *k' in Satem. The first seems more reasonable especially if
you realize that uvulars may have been there in pre-PIE and thats why we may
have some clues pointing to *q etc.

>I had mentioned the idea that
> Anatolian itself might suffer its own "centum-satem" division. What about
> that idea?

This only proves in my view that there is no real centum-satem division.
There are only different treatings of the same thing, that is the centum and
the satem treating of *k' both being possible at the beginning.

Mate