Re: [tied] Albanian as a satem langauge

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, mkapovic@... wrote:

> > This Luwian "z" was pronnounced like "ts" or "z" ?
> >
> > Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> escreveu:mkapovic@... wrote:
> >
> >> Could you yield more information on the last point? On the non-

satem lgs

> >> with traces of *K - *K' distinction, I mean. Thanks,
> >
> > I had two things in mind:
> >
> > (1) The tendency of the "plain" *K series to colour an adjacent

*e to

> > *a, visible also in the non-satem remainder of IE.
> >
> > (2) The possible distinction between reflexes of *k and *k^ in

Luwian

> > (both cuneiform and hieroglyphic). According to Melchert, *k^ >

z,

> > contrasting with both *k and *kW. The showcase examples are

<za:rt->

> > 'heart' and *zuwani- 'dog'.
>
> Oh yes, but I would not really consider Luwian a centum language.

I think

> it's pretty sure that Luwian (and Lycian) show distinct reflexes

of the

> three series and prove that PIE really did have *K - *K^ - *KW.

One could

> also add Luwian za-/zi- < PIE *k^o- "this", Luwian zi:- < PIE

*k^ey-

> "lie", -zza- < PIE *-sk^e-, azuwa- "horse" < PIE *h1ek^wo-, zurani-

"horn"

> < PIE *k^rn-. This looks rather conviencing and actually I'm just

amazed

> how people just tend to ignore it. Also, Melchert is quite calm

when

> talking about it, as if it's just a trivial thing which is not

really very

> important for the reconstruction of PIE.
>

But theoretically it would still be possible for PIE to have two
velar series that varied according to context (back/front), *k/c^,
*kW/k, later generalised to (kentum) *k, *kW or (satem) *c^ (> s^

> s), *k, plus one that didn't, (plain) *k, appearing in loans, and

still have different reflexes of all three (in those languages where
the two variable series were generalised differently than shown
here, to be sure).


Torsten