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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

>
> Since Peter was quoting me instead of Mate (a more challengeable

opponent

> against his and my viewpoint), I assume he must have really lost

something

> in the detail:
> > I lost something here. Why must [k'] be posited for the centum
> > languages?
>
> That's the whole point. I don't really know. I myself haven't heard

a

> really adequate explanation to support palatal velar stops in

centum nor

> in IE. I must have lost something too. I was responding to Mate, who
> seemed convinced that palatal velars existed in IE itself and not

just in

> satem dialects. I still await something convincing to override the

simpler

> theory of uvularity.
>
>
> > This requires both IE dialect groups to have brought [q] forward

to [k],

>
> Yep. Sure looks that way. That's why palatals are messy. Let's

string 'em

> up and hang 'em! Let's rid ourselves of bad phonology!!!
> AAAARRRRRRGGGGH!!!
>
>

The really easy solution is to assume only [q k] becoming [q/k k/c^],
the phonemes having two allophones depending on the context (non-
palatal/palatal), later supplemented with a non-alternating velar in
new words, incl. loans, making it [q/k k k/c^], and with later
levelling in paradigms making it either

satem (the backs get purged) [k k c^] > [k s^] etc or

kentum (the fronts get purged) [q k k] > [q k]([kW k]) .


Torsten