Mate:
>[...] a-colouring and uvularity can be pre-IE
But now you overcomplicate the theory. While it is "possible" (yet again
that word), it is not most probable from what I see. You must now
concede, given the overwhelming evidence that pre-IE at the very
least used uvular velar stops, not palatal velars. So you accept that
at some stage of IE or pre-IE there was a velar series *[k q kW].
If so, it is logically unnecessarily to derive *[k' k kW] from it for ALL
of IE, when there is no evidence of palatal velar stops in anything
but the satem languages. Rather than propose *[k q kW] >
*[k' k kW] > *[k kW] for all centum languages, you must accept
that it is much simpler to theorize *[k q kW] > *[k kW] in one step.
Now before you respond, you are still thinking about the Luwian
evidence, but this doesn't show much. It is conceivable (unless
others wish to interject on this) that Anatolian was geographically
between centum and satem languages at some point. This could
explain Luwian as a product of satemization of a part of the Anatolian
area. This region of Anatolian would be at the very edge of the
satem wave. It doesn't necessarily suggest that Proto-Anatolian
once had *[k' k kW]. It may be, according to this scenario, that
Proto-Anatolian had both *[k kW] (like the other centum lgs)
AND *[k' k kW] (like the Satem dialect area) with strong mutual
influences between these two regions which had kept the
Anatolian area knit together. Or rather, to phrase this another
way, that "Proto-Anatolian" is really two close dialects of IE, one
"centum", the other "satem", reconstructed together as though
they were one dialect.
At any rate, there is nothing that really shows palatalization in
IE and everything that shows that it didn't. You should have no
choice in the matter unless you have evidence that directly shows
that centum languages DID have palatal velars. You don't. Instead
you deny well-known facts and supply untenable opinions of your
own:
>[...] I think there was no real phoneme *a in PIE
Think all you want. It's incorrect. Not only is the lack of *a in
a vowel system completely unattested in all known languages
(at least human ones), you simply cannot wave away such a
common root as *kap- "grasp, hold, have". It is far too secure to
ignore. And yet, it is also certain that there is no laryngeal present
here. Thus, *a does exist as a real phoneme.
You are plainly wrong on this matter.
By accepting *a, you should be more open to the evidence
suggesting a-colouring by uvular phonemes like *q (k) and *x (h2).
And then, your assimilation will be complete :P
>I believe that *h1, *h2 and *h3 were *x', *x and *xW and many others do.
"Many others" buy lottery tickets despite the odds. "Many others"
kill others in the name of their god or gods. "Many others" think
reality tv is intelligent. Shall I go on with this unnerving list of
examples showing increasing modern-day groupthink and decreasing
sense? Grrrr!
Now back to logical thinking, which should be arrived at as an
_individual_, not as part of a herd. Again, there is no evidence
substantiating this supposed palatality of *h1. Aspiration? Yes.
Palatality? No. If there is, enlighten me please.
Piotr already mentioned the lowering quality of *h2 on vowels
(suggesting uvularity) in contrast to the absence of colouring
from *h1 (suggesting a default "plain" quality). Since *h3
colours vowels to *o, naturally it comes to mind that this is
a labial phoneme on a par with *kW. Thus, just as *kW, *h3
must be *hW ([-uvular][+labial]). There are no doubly-marked
phonemes like **qW or **xW ([+uvular][+labial]). Again, you
seem to be wrong here too and you haven't substantiated
the palatal nature of *h1 -- What really shows this?
Boy, talking about a captain going down with his ship.
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca