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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> 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,
>
> which point to three different sounds in the proto-language.
>
> This is no different from what we have in e.g. Romance:
>
> Latin Sardo rest
> i i e
> e: e e
> e e E
>
> Since Latin is attested, we know there were originally three vowel

sounds

> to account for the attested variation. We're not in a position

where we

> can conjure up a scheme where "/e/ is an artifact caused by the

loan of

> closed /e/'s into a language where front vowels alternated *i/*e and
> *e-/*E- in paradigms", etc.
>

I am glad that you agree with me.

We know Latin. That is the reason we can't conjure up a scheme
where "/e/ is an artifact caused by the loan of closed /e/'s into a
language where front vowels alternated *i/*e and *e-/*E- in
paradigms"., etc., because that would be in conflict with what we
know to be the case with the proto-language, Latin.

But we don't know PIE, therefore that restriction doesn't apply here.

Furthermore, so far most Latin roots with <ca-> I've checked have had
rots in other languages (mostly Semitic) so similar that either
Møller or Bomhard or both have preoposed cognacy. Given the fact that
there are probably donor languages that have disappeared and whose
donations we will never be able to trace outside of PIE, I think it's
highly suspicious that it is still possible to match such a high
percentage of 'plain velars' to still-existing non-IE languages.

Torsten