From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 40098
Date: 2005-09-18
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, mkapovic@... wroteLehmann:
>>
>> 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?
>In no IE dialect, however, do we find three contrasting phonemes;This is not the case for reconstructable pre-stages of
>the greatest number in any dialect is two.
>k^a- no evidenceThere is evidence for *k^a-, although it is admittedly rare.
>k^o- rare.
>ke- rare.