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

From: altamix
Message: 30957
Date: 2004-02-11

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:43:01 +0000, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>> The /a/ that follows in Latin is the main argument why the PIE plain
>> velars must be different from the other two velar series
> No. The main argument is that we have the correspondences:
> "satem" "centum"
> c' k
> k k
> k kW,
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

Meillet-Vendryes,76 :" the palatal pronounciation of "k'" and "g'" when
followed by "e" is attested in the prehistoric time of Latin:
scelus-sceleris, gelu-gelare versus "holus"(arch. "holus")-holeris;
Later, the "k'" +e, i became assibilated in a part of Romance languages;
the assibilation did not happened in the same time in whole Imperium

That sounds courious a bit if we face this with the next sentence:
"the oldest loans in Germanic shows a nonpalatalisant pronounciation of
"k": Got. "akeit, kaisar, lukarn, karkara < acetum, Caesar, lucerna,

Do one has to understand that Latin stil have had the difference between
"k'" and "k" in that time?