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

--- 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.