--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, mkapovic@... wrote
>
> 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.
I'd like to know what's wrong with Lehmann's explanation?
He would have two velar series for P.I.E. up until a brief
(because unstable?) stage just prior to its break up. He
gives what I think is a very good argument for this on pgs.
100 - 102 of his 'Proto-Indo-European Phonology', which I
have uploaded to the files section. The TITUS Cyberbit Basic
font is needed to view it properly.
Ever since I read Lehmann's argument I've been puzzled why
more Indo-Europeanists (at least those on this list) don't
seem to accept it, and also why the Nostraticists (at least
those on Nostratic-L) are trying to take off from a P.I.E.
with three velar series when its earliest stages would have
had no more than two.
What's wrong with Lehmann's view?
David