Mate:
> I know you took the idea from Piotr but I'm calling
> it "your theory" for the sake of simplicity.
Accepted.
> 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.
Fine, but there is still no logical reason to theorize
that an unstable system lasted longer than necessary.
You follow no consistent methodology.
> Maybe your not aware that languages are seldom
> optimally efficient.
Wow. I'm floored that you missed the basic point:
We can't depend on rarities, oddities, random
goofball changes, etc, etc, etc to formulate an
unbiased and logical theory. Your statement is
frustratingly irrelevant but you repeat this rot
over and over as if it changes good methodological
procedure.
> I still prefere attestation to theory. Sorry...
And the attestation says nothing. The satem lgs
show *c^ for the supposed **k^ but the centum lgs
_never_ distinguish between palatal *k^ and plain *k.
More truthfully, you prefer faith over either
attestation or theory.
> Palatalized velars are attested (almost) directly
> by it's fricative/africate reflexes,
No. **Satem** languages only attest to _*c^_! Aside
from violating markedness, palatal **k^ is not in any
single IE language at all. While *q may equally be
unattested directly, it does not violate markedness.
In fact, what few languages truly have a palatalized
velar stop in the first place?
Logic still favours *k-*q-*kW over *k^-*k-*kW.
= gLeN
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com