Re: Dissimilation of gW/kWVw to gVw/kVw

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

>
> --- 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?
>
>

Seems I have to get the answers myself.
Gamkrelidze & Ivanov list the following roots plain velars:

Skt. yugám etc "yoke"
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/yug.html

Skt. stághati etc "covers"

Skt. ugrá- etc "strong"
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Op.html 'aukan'

Skt. megháh. etc. "cloud"
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/my.html

Skt. stighnoti etc "ascends"

Lat. hostis etc "alien, enemy"

Gk. keskíon etc "combings, tow"

Lat. lu:cus etc "(sacred) grove"
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/lwk.html

Skt. kravis etc "blood"


ie. four of the nine were on Paul Manansala'a original Sanskrit-
Austronesian list. Makes you wonder how many of the other IE roots
in plain velar come from now inaccessible languages.


Torsten