Re: [tied] *kW- "?"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- 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?

Well, in most (if not all) satem languages, *kWos 'what (kind)' and
*kos 'that (one)' would have fallen together into *kos ~ *kas (cf.
Vedic _kas_ 'what (kind)'). If the demonstrative had a genitive of
the form *késyo, that would have regularly given satem *c^ésyo ~
*c^ésya (cf. Vedic _œásya_). More than likely, then, a new form
*c^os ~ *c^as would have been created.

- Rob