Re: [tied] *kW- "?"

>> Mate: There are quite a few rarities and oddities in IE,
>> so another one is hardly surprising.
>
> Glenn: "So let's have an oddball IE party?" Is that what
> you're saying? I don't think so. When you add the
> screwy *k^-*k distribution with the absence of *b

Heard of Lifu? No?

> and the implausibility of a contrast of *t-d-dH
> without **tH, you get a very baaaaad theory.

Heard of Kelabit? No? I thought so...
But there are of course other explanation, without interpreting the
aspirates as voiced and voiced as semi-voiced which is just plain
ridiculous.

> We don't toss the data out; we update the theory.

... by twisting the actual attested data...

> Mate goes on:
>> [...] and that this isogloss cut the Anatolian
>> branch into two parts.
>
> Why not? Do you not understand how dialectology
> works? This process happens all the time. Languages
> don't fragment like tree branches. They're affected
> by neighbouring dialects. Many historically different
> dialects or languages can end up adopting the same
> feature over time if they are side-by-side. This
> happens! It's proven! What more can one say?

Ever heard of trivial and non-trivial changes? Ever heard that isoglosses
usually (not always though) travel in pairs?

>> Neither is *q. But *k' can be reconstructed on the
>> basis of its reflections while *q cannot.
>
> Um, sweetie. There is no direct attestion of *k^
> either. Why do you insist on this double standard?

Again not the same, "sweetie"... There are attestations of palatalization
in Satem and of a "velarness" in Centum - the obvious result is a
palatalized velar. And with the supposed *q all attestations point to the
velar, no attestation points to the uvular.

>> None, but no lgs have *gWH either and it's not
>> difficult to reconstruct it.
>
> That's because *gH doesn't exist as it is. It's
> not "aspirate" like the traditionalists are saying
> and this causes even more confusion.

You've missed to point completely.

Mate