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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:
> > >The evidence of comparative linguistics is, if anything,

stronger

> when it
> > >operates between languages than within a single branch.
> >
> > That depends what we are trying to prove. If we are trying to
> prove
> > existence of a particular root or form, and reflexes of that root
> or form
> > are found in different languages, then that is stronger evidence
> than
> > finding them just in a single language. But if we are trying to
> prove a PIE
> > pattern involving more than one form, we have to find reflexes of
> more than
> > one form within the same language. Otherwise we only know that
> some
> > languages show this form, and some that - we can't prove that the
> > alternation was a regular patterning in PIE.
>
> I cannot find a good examples of acrostatic -o- alternating with
> weak-case -e- in which the alternants are from the same language.

We

> have /pod-/ in Greek, /ped-/ in Latin, /do(:)m-/ in Armenian, /dem-

/

> in Greek, *nokWt- all over the place except Anatolian, *nekWt- only
> in Hittite. Are we not allowed to combine them on the level of PIE?
> And if we are, why must we not do the same with the forms of a-

roots?

>

Are we bound to not inserting intermediate stages, but have to bundle
the whole thing within one reconstructed language?

Torsten