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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))


>You must now
> concede, given the overwhelming evidence that pre-IE at the very
> least used uvular velar stops, not palatal velars.

I haven't seen those "overwhelming evidence" as yet....

> So you accept that
> at some stage of IE or pre-IE there was a velar series *[k q kW].

No. I just said it is possible, among other things.

> 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.

And what is Anatolian? It is usually considered centum. But I suppose that
saying something is "satem" is rendered nonworthy as evidence... I fail to
see why. No lg shows uvularity, palatality is shown in "satem" lgs.
What does "when there is no evidence of palatal velar stops in anything but
the satem languages" mean? Some lgs have it, some don't. It is like saying,
there is no reason to presume PIE had *H- because it is kept only in
Anatolian... Not all lgs preserve everything.

>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.

That would maybe be the case if the uvular theory would be absolutly
certain, but it is not. And still this means nothing. In the similar way you
can for instance say that there is no logic that PIE *s > (RUKI) > *s^ >
(Slavic) *x > (palatalisation) *s^. It would be simpler if it just stayed
*s^ but it didn't. Also, it would be much simpler if Slavic *o was just
easily derived from PIE *o - but it is not, we have to assume PIE *o > BSl
*a > Slavic *o.

> 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.

All I have to say to this is: yeah, right...

> 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.

Anatolian.

> 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.

Greek maybe? Greek e/a/o would neatly correspond to *x', *x and *xw.

> 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).

This makes no sense. How could a palatalized *x' change front *x'? Also if
*x changes *e to *a, and *xW *e to *o what is there left for *x' if there is
only *e, *a, *o?

> Boy, talking about a captain going down with his ship.

Just in your mind....


Mate