From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 30263
Date: 2004-01-29
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:Which means that there are no grounds for saying that *k "occurs only in
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:09:50 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
>wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:12:11 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On the question of palatal vs palatalised (now I can't find the
>> >> >thread) I think palatalised must mean something that can be de-
>> >> >palatalised (unlike palatal), it must have a rubber band
>attached;
>> >> >which is: participation in a paradigm in which that sound
>(velar)
>> >> >alternates between palatalised and non-palatal,
>> >>
>> >> Not necessarily. And certainly not in the case of PIE *k and
>*k^,
>> >which do
>> >> not alternate significantly.
>> >
>> >You misunderstand me. I am suggesting that so-called palatal PIE
>*k^
>> >once alternated between (eg.) /k/ and /k'/ (or /c^/) in the
>> >appropiate contexts, from which state of affairs it was
>> >regularised/generalised to either a non-alternating /k/ (in the
>> >centum languages) or a non-alternating /k'/ (in the satem
>languages,
>> >from which it developed > /c^/ > /s^/ etc), and that so-called
>plain
>> >PIE *k occurs only in loans into PIE from Old European which is a
>> >para-/pre-IE language in central Europe.
>>
>> The first thing I suppose is possible, the second thing is
>unfounded.
>
>Which means? Please explain.