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

Mate:

>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.

How can I consider *k - *k^ - *kW "illogical" if I just said that I
_accepted_
it for Satem? I merely acknowledge that it is rare and undesirable as a
theory if a more optimal velar series can be supported. No, yet again you're
confused. The series IS "logical". I was claiming the obsessive support of
it may be. It was a cheap tactic to goad out new ideas :)

>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.

Actually, I'd say that it is if both numerals are borrowed over and over
again as a pair. Look at Kartvelian, Basque and Etruscan. It seems clear
that these numerals had some significance to neolithic cultures, a very
strong significance, no doubt religious and numerological. It's hard to
consider one without the other.

>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'.

You're absolutely right. But the *k in *sweks isn't from *s^ at all.


= gLeN

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photos&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca