Re: [tied] *kW- "?"

----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] *kW- "?"


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, glen gordon <glengordon01@...>
> wrote:
> > > Etherman23:
> > > > Actually it's quite easy to see why *k^ would be
> > > > more common. If *e palatalized velars [...]
> > >
> > > Have to cut you off. IE *k^ is simply not found
> > > *only* next to *e. It is found next to *o, as in
> > > *k^o-, the demonstrative stem.
> >
> > Paradigmatic levelling, perhaps?
> >
>
> There's something wrong with a root of the type Co. Suppose those
> demonstratives and relatives were originally eC, the Co form created
> from separating enclitics?
>
>
> Torsten


***
Patrick:

In pre-PIE, the word was *ke, which became *k^Á.

When stress-unaccented, this became PIE *k^o-.

***