Re: Dissimilation of gW/kWVw to gVw/kVw

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:10:21 +0000, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >You propose that the plain *k-series are derived from pre-PIE
> >> >uvulars *q etc. I believe they occur only in loanwords. Can

you

> >> >propose a way to decide which alternative is true?
> >>
> >> Sure. *k occurs in the PIE diminutive suffix *-(i)ko-, so
> >> that's one certain case of not a borrowing.
> >>
> >
> >Ahem. *-(i)ko is not borrowed because it is PIE.
>
> No, *-(i)ko is not borrowed because it's the diminutive
> suffix.
>
>

I see. *-(i)ko is not borrowed because it's the diminutive suffix in
PIE and it's the diminutive suffix in PIE because you say it is.


Let's try another angle, perhaps you'll understand the question this
way: How do you *know* it was present in PIE, given that one has to
posit a whole velar (uvular) series to accomodate it (and a number
of other roots), and that roots reconstructed with that series
weren't borrowed?


Torsten