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

----- Original Message -----
From: "glen gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [tied] *kW- "?"


>
> Mate:
>> 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.
>
> It would be illogical to unnecessarily extend the
> duration of an obviously unstable system back in time.

Maybe you should consider reconstruction instead of "logic".

> In the uvular interpretation, there is *no*
> instability at *any* point in time!

It is logically instable though, because you insist on reconstructing
something (the uvular) that shows no trace anywhere. The uvular theory is
just one of the possible scenarios for pre-IE.

> Therefore you must consider this the logically
> superior view and do away with your unnecessary and
> completely unlikely "*k-*k^-kW stage" altogether.

Just repeating that something is superior does not actually make it
superior.

> The theory must be altered to conform with linguistic
> reality.

It seems like linguistic reality is your problem, not mine.

Mate