From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 41942
Date: 2005-11-09
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:15 PM
Subject: [tied] 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.)
***
Patrick:
Richard, I am sorry but I still do not see it.
PIE *kw regularly produces OI <c>; PIE *k produces OI <k>; PIE *k^ produces
OI <S>.
Are you suggesting that PIE *k/*kw/*k^ were conflated into satem *k, and
then subsequently differentiated?
***
> 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.
***
Patrick:
I am not in agreement with the possibility of a satem *kekore since I
believe that pre-PIE *i/*u became early PIE *Ya/*Wa which became
satem/kentum *a with palatalization and velarization retained by the
consonant where possible.
As for Brugmann's "Law", the discussion ended abruptly when I detailed that
there were so many needed special cases to explain exceptions that the "Law"
hardly qualified as a law. The exceptions for special cases began to look to
everyone who was really looking like an endless series of ad hoc fingers in
the leaking dyke.
To assert, as David did - repeatedly - that PIE *k^[(h)] results in Old
Indian <c> is just flat out wrong; and he withdrew from the discussion, it
appears to me, in lieu of just honestly admitting his false characterization
of the data, the falsity of which can be immediately determined by anyone
with an IE dictionary. PIE *k^[(h)] leads clearly to Old Indian <S> in
dozens of attestations.
His formulation is the result of self-uncritical inbred dogma that persists
even in spite of the abundant evidence to the contrary. When you learn IE
linguistics, you learn such dogma, and, evidently, are taught to never
question it.
***