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

> >> >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.
>
> Which means that there are no grounds for saying that *k "occurs

only in

> loans into PIE from Old European".
>

You must have better arguments than this? I don't think there's much
doubt that

1) Old European existed.

2) It has no direct descendants, therefore
2a) Other IE languages took over its territory

Question: If one language takes over the territory of another, is it
likely that it takes over absolutely no loanwords from that language?

Nah.

And from there one might begin to speculate what such loans might
look like etc.


Torsten