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