Re: Re[2]: [tied] *kW- "?"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:50 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [tied] *kW- "?"


<snip>

> > Nothing but nothing is unmotivated in language development
> > or in any other historical process.
>
> This looks like an article of faith. Certainly it would be
> difficult to support on any other basis. It isn't even
> really clear that 'motivated' can be usefully defined. (On
> this general topic I recommend the discussion in Chapter 7
> of Roger Lass, Historical Linguistics and Language Change.)

***
Patrick:

It is an article of faith for those who respect reality.

It is certainly clear to me and any objective observer what 'motivated'
means in this context. Palatalization occurs rather regularly before front
vowels and /y/ in innumerbale languages.

***


> > It is supremely important to retain the palatalized
> > dorsals where we can identify them because they allow us
> > to know that the pre-PIE vowel in that position was /e/.
>
> This is an argument for retaining the distinction between
> *k^ and *k; it has nothing to do with their phonetic values.


***
Patrick:

Then the question is meaningless. If *k^ does not represent palatalized /k/
then the matter of markedness becomes moot. Are you really suggesting that
*k^ does _not_ represent palatalized /k/?

***

> > 'Markedness' is a useless concept. If it had any
> > legitimacy, Khoisan could not exist with its very "marked"
> > clicks.
>
> This is an absurd straw man.
>
> Brian

***
Patrick:

Why do you not explain why this is absurd?


***