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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:

> >If all Latin words with non-ablauting /a/ are borrowed, then all
> >Latin words with <ca-> are borrowed. But the occurrence of /a/

after

> >supposed plain velars in Latin was the main argument for the
> >existence of those plain velars in PIE! So:
> >Plain velars don't exist!
>
> (b) The main argument for the existence of plain velars in PIE is

the

> correspondence:
> Centum /k/ ~ Satem /k/
> It has nothing to do with the vowel that follows.
>

The /a/ that follows in Latin is the main argument why the PIE plain
velars must be different from the other two velar series since it
supposedly has a specific effect on the following vowel, turning it
into /a/. And since that is the case, there is no reason to assume a
loan, the standard argument goes. I say, instead, that the /a/ is a
sign it _is_ probably loaned. And if I'm right, the standard argument
is unraveled.

> (a) A number of ca- words in Latin show an impeccable PIE pedigree,

eg capio

> ~ Germanic have.

As I mentioned before, Møller has a Semitic parallel for it. Bomhard
has Semitic, Kartvelian and Dravidian parallels for it (and it is not
necessarily inherited from Nostratic, just because Bomhard says so).
I wouldn't bet my life on it not being borrowed into various IE
branches, especially in consideration of the confused situation with
the parallel root *ghebh-, English <have>, otherwise an indication of
loan.

> Calens / Kalens ~ kaleo in Greek.

I think Møller has that covered too, I'll check.

>canis ~ kuo:n in Greek.

The *k-n-, *k-r, *k-t- thing that goes *kWon-? That animal has been
dropping similar names after it all the way from (South) East Asia,
where it was first domesticated.

>I don't think you can say all Latin words with <ca-> are borrowed!

So far two out of three most likely are and I'm working on the third.
You can do better than that ;-)

Torsten