Re: [tied] *kW- "?"

>
> > Yep, there's a problem there. But consider:
> > 1) PIE had coordinated, not subordinated sentences,
> > so the *kW- pronouns must be late.
>
> What exactly does that mean? Can you elaborate?
>

The premise (1) is a well-established fact, afaIk. It seems logical
that the interrogative use of the kW- pronouns is derived from, thus
later than, their use as relatives; 'Do you know the one, who did
it?' > 'Who did it?'. And a language that uses coordination, not
subordination, needs no relative pronouns. So I assume the *kW-
pronouns are constructed late.
BTW the phrase '...they borrowed the pronominal endings...' has
always puzzled. If the pronominal endings wre instead enclitics that
were once independent words, that phrase would make more sense.

> > 2) -ko, with plain /k/, and therefore suspected of
> > being a loan, [...]
>
> A dangerous assumption. There is nothing odd about
> that phoneme at all. It is by far one of the most
> common sounds in world languages, for Pete's sake!
> Even Hawaiian has /k/ despite being an oddball
> that lacks /s/.

That's because you think of it as a phonetically distinct separate
PIE phoneme. I think so-called *k^ (etc) was actually in PIE a *k
with allophones *k/*c^ depending on its various environments, and so-
called *kW had allophones *kW/*k in similar environments. Kentum and
satem languages regularised their paradigms with the former and
latter allophone of each, respectively, more or less successfully.
Only so-called plain *k did not vary; it had not taken part in the
processes that created the *k/*c^ and *kW/*k allophones, because
words that contain them were loaned later.
So, the 'back' allophone of *k^, plain *k, and the 'front' allophone
of *kW were actually phonetically all ordinary /k/ 's.

>
> > 3) Until about 1500 BCE, all IE speakers could be
> > reached by ship in the Mediterranean.
>
> Why 1500 BCE? Where did you pull that date from?
>

The assumed entry of the Sanskrit-speakers into India.

> You're making a whole bunch of empty assertions
> without coming forth with the facts that support
> your basis. As usual. Why should we have to goad you
> into providing evidence? It should be automatic by
> your own accord.
>

Sorry. I'm not always aware of what other people aren't aware of.



Torsten