Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: The role of analogy, alliteration and sandhi

Alex:

> 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 : katër - 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.

Says who?

> 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")

Oh, I didn't know that Albanian is a Romance language, what a news! :-)

>
> Alex

Alex, you keep misunderstanding, I'm afraid :-) (or, maybe, I do)

As many have written already, W in kW is just a CONVENTION to mark
(presupposed) (bi)labial COARTICULATION. I - personally - imagine touching
the velum with one's tongue WHILE (at the very same time) rounding one's
lips. Therefore:

Oscan petora: kW > p (directly!)
Russian c^etyre: kW > k (directly!) and then ke- (via kXe-, being a velar
and already an affricate, or t^e ) > c^e (for me, it's quite absurd to think
of any "kpe", which would be much harder to palatalize, wouldn't it?)

Gothic fidwhor: kW > xW > F (it doesn't matter if /F/ was a bilabial or
labiodental consonant, I guess. The developement is clear, though)

Albanian katër: kW > k (directly, why not?!)

etc.

Is it clear now? Or am I really misunderstanding the whole thing at the
moment? Nothing is impossible :-).

Petusek