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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Torsten:
> > Obviously with so many different, but near-homophonous and near-
> > synonymous reconstructed roots Bomhard hasn't shown single origin
> > for these collections of words. On the contrary, this is the type
> > of picture you get when you try to find a proto-root for what is
> > actually one root loaned several times over from somewhere else.
>
> Oh my god, Torsten. What's gotten into you? You're making so
> much sense that I find myself questioning the world in which
> I live. Reality itself! The world will end soon. There is no
> doubt in my mind now :)
>

Erh, whatever got into me did so some years back when this Møller
drone had to retreat to the position that Møller's matchings
represent loans, not inheritance, under the relentless attacks of
certain members of this group. Don't give me such shocks, I fell off
the chair.

Another thing about Bomhard: how come there are no context-sensitive
palatalisations in his rules over several millenia, when Slavic alone
had three or four?

BTW Holger Pedersen has the same idea of breaking up all PIE
consonant clusters in a short remark about future trends (using
<deus> and <divus>, supposedly from *däjäwä-) in his History of
Linguistics in the 19th century. Cuny uses it too. (Written as
remembered!)

Torsten