Re: [tied] *kW- "?"

> Miguel:
>> Well, Luwian has *k^ > z (/c/), which suggests a
>> palatal quality for *k^ in Proto-Anatolian (which
>> is definitely *not* in the "_post-IE_ satem dialect
>> area").
>
> "Definitely not"? Are you six thousand years old,
> Miguel? My, what amazing longetivity you have :)
>
> This idea can hardly be used to discount issues of
> markedness. Besides, there are two potential options
> here that are hard to disprove. One is that Luwian
> is not a satem language and that it's palatalized
> *k's are secondary.

And this later palatalization occurs just accidentally in the 'dog' and
'horse' word among others? Oh come oooon...

>The second possibility (and I
> just love this one cuz it's so possible and yet so
> trippy) is that _part_ of the Anatolian dialect
> area lied within the satem area, the part that later
> became "Luwian".

But you seem to be forgeting that the 'regular' satem-languages (except
for Albanian and Armenian in front of front vowels) all show *k = *kW.
That's why your theory works with them. But Luwian has not *k = *kW (like
satem) nor *k' = *k (like centum). That's why your theory does *not* work
with Luwian.

Mate