IIr 2nd Palatalisation (was: PIE voiceless aspirates)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>

> Well it's simply ridiculous to try to deny the second
> palatalization. Do you deny that Satem *kekore resulted
> in Sanskrit cakara? If you do not, then what do you
> call the stage in which *k before a front vowel fronted
> to something eventually resulting in an affricate in
> Sanskrit and Iranian?
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Yes, I certainly do deny that Satem *kekore led to Old Indian <cakara>.

> On the other hand, where we do see Old Indian <c> is as a reflex of PIE
> *kW - quite regularly. If we imagine that *kWer- formed a reduplicated
> *kWe-kWer, we would only have to suppose that the actual verbal root

was

> simplified to arrive at *tSakara - without the necessity of some

secondary

> palatalization.

By 'satem *k' David meant the product of PIE *kW and *k. Therefore
you two are largely arguing about nothing! (Satem *k is a slightly
loose term as the two seem not to have merged in Albanian.)

Therefore, when David said Satem *kekore > Sanskrit _cakara_, he would
expect you to be in agreement. You might be a minority - adherents of
Brugmann's law would say that *kekore > _caka:ra_ was the regular
development. We flogged that horse quite thoroughly a few weeks ago.

Richard.