Re: PIE *akWa: 'water' (was: The role of analogy, alliteration and

From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 34735
Date: 2004-10-17

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "petusek" <petusek@...> wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> > >> Can
> > >> one agree the PIE k^w was as in english "chew" ?
> > >
> > > No. A better choice is [kw], say as <qu> in English _queen_.
>
> Remember that c^ is an affricate. If you want to imagine palatals
(so common
> in Czech), try to articulate /j/, find the place in your mouth and
> articulate a stop (not fricative or affricate) at the same place.
Oh, c^ is
> pronounced on that place too, of course, but it's an
affricate. "chew" lacks
> the labializing component :-(, "queen" lacks the palatalizing one.
Neither
> of the examples is close enough, but the truth MIGHT have been
somewhere
> between.

The /tS/ of English <chew> is [tS_w] (following the principle that
clusters, not affricates, are marked if they contrast), so it wasn't
such a bad approximation to [k'w]. The main issue is that many no
longer believe PIE *k^ was palatal or even palatalised.

Richard.