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

> At 9:13:11 AM on Saturday, September 17, 2005,
> mkapovic@... wrote:
>
>>>> Or not. I still don't get how do you explain Luwian with
>>>> your theory?
>
>>> In the same way as anything else. All we are doing is
>>> changing the "symbol": *k^=>*k, *k=>*q. That's it. All
>>> the previous explanations for Luwian or any language you
>>> can think of in IE linguistics are still in effect. It's
>>> just that we derive the attested results from a plain *k
>>> (instead of palatal *k^) or a uvular *q (instead of plain
>>> *k) instead.
>
>> Wait a minute. You *are* aware that Luwian shows different
>> outcomes for *k, *k' and *kW consistently (k, z and kw)?
>> You just *cannot* explain beginning with just *k and *q.
>
> I think that you've misunderstood Glen: as I understand it,
> he simply wishes to change *k^, *k, *kW to *k, *q, *kW.

Then OK. I just think that we have to have 3 and not just 2 series.
Although, if there indeed was *q > *k and *k > *k' change, I would still
rather reconstruct it in pre-IE than in regular IE coz we find no trace of
*q in IE lgs and all the evidence point to *k', not *k. Thus, for the last
phase of IE, I'd much rather reconstruct unstable *k, *k', *kW.

Mate