From: petusek
Message: 34744
Date: 2004-10-17
>I see. Yes, of course, I misunderstood. It was a good approximation, indeed.
>
> --- 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.