petusek wrote:
> To sum it up, I think there would be more than one steps do procede
> the kW > w change necessary.
> It's up to you whether you take the kW >
> ?W > w (? being a glottal stop) - i.e. at least 1 intermediate form -
> or kW > (QW > XW ?) hW
>> w (Q being a voiceless uvular stop, X a voiceless uvular fricative)
>> - i.e.
> again, at least 1 intermediate forms (in fact, the uvular stops
> might've been just allophones of the velars).
>
> Petusek
I don't deny this idea at all. These "steps" should be though demonstrate.
Are there any traces in any IE languages
which show the intermediary step where "kW" > "?W", is there the need for a
such step? Are there some languages which requests this step? If yes, then
one should think seriously about the intermediary step, if not, it appears
easy to handle the idea of simply simplification.
If we take an example as "*kWetuer" and its reflexes in IE languages I
should like to see where is the need for the intermediary step.
Latin : quattuor - kW > ku
Oscan : petora - kW > kp > p
Russian : c^etyre - kW > kp > k > c^
Gothic : fidwhor - kW > kp > p > f
Albanian : kat�r - kW > kp > k
Kymrish : petru- - kW > kp > p
Avestan : c^ature - kW > kp > k
Greek : tetra - kW > kp >k > t
So, which language needs a intermediary step here? Apparently all languages
reduced "kp" tp "k" or "p" just Latin and Greek have another game here.
Latin kept the "ku" and Greek acted as Albanian (later ?) where ke > q (q in
Albanian = kind of "t" since that is a palatal sound and it is condiered
that Latin/Romance "ke" yelded in Albanian "q")
Alex