Re: [tied] *kW- "?"

> Mate goes astray yet again:
>> Possible, but only if one sticks to your theory.
>
> ?? This is not "my" theory, Mate, since I had adopted
> this idea from Piotr (which he no doubt adopted from
> someone else through his studies). I think you're
> stuck on personal issues against me and are not
> thinking clearly about this viewpoint, devoid of its
> originator.

I know you took the idea from Piotr but I'm calling it "your theory" for
the sake of simplicity. And by the way, I never said the theory's not
valid, I only said that it's probably pre-IE rather than proper IE.

> The traditional theory is INVALID by markedness, Mate,
> because, simply, a logical theory must be _OPTIMALLY_
> EFFICIENT.

Maybe your not aware that languages are seldom optimally efficient.

>A theorist must weed out any non-
> necessities, otherwise the theory suffers. Period.
>
> I sincerely cannot grasp how even the average joe or
> mary can't understand the glaring problems raised
> against the traditional view here at this point.
>
> It is a constant onus on linguistics that some people
> can't understand the very basics of Logic to even see
> how supporting a theory based on _rarities_ rather
> than _the most commonplace things_ is completely
> insane.

I still prefere attestation to theory. Sorry... Palatalized velars are
attested (almost) directly by it's fricative/africate reflexes, uvular
velars are not. Languages do pass through unstable phases and the velar
series thing is certainly not the only peculiar thing in IE. Period.

Mate