Re: [tied] IIr 2nd Palatalisation (was: PIE voiceless aspirates)

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

>
> Richard, I am sorry but I still do not see it.
>
> PIE *kw regularly produces OI <c>;

Absolutely not. SOME instances of PIE *kW resulted in
Sanskrit 'k', but others resulted instead in Sanskrit
'c', wherever a front vowel or *y originally followed.

> PIE *k produces OI <k>; PIE *k^ produces OI <S>.

No, not ALL instances of Sanskrit 'k' came from PIE *k,
as some came instead from PIE *kW, and neither did all
instances of PIE *k result in a Sanskrit 'k', as some
resulted instead in Sanskrit 'c', wherever a front vowel
or *y originally followed.

> Are you suggesting that PIE *k/*kw/*k^ were conflated into
> satem *k, and then subsequently differentiated?

No. Only PIE *k and *kW conflated in a Satem *k, or at
least a pre-Indo-Iranian branch of Satem, from which
later either a Sanskrit 'k' or a Sanskrit 'c' resulted,
depending upon whether a front vowel or *y followed or
not.

> To assert, as David did - repeatedly - that PIE *k^[(h)] results
> in Old Indian <c> is just flat out wrong;

I never asserted that! That's your own muddle-headed
misunderstanding.

> and he withdrew from the discussion, it appears to me, in lieu of
> just honestly admitting his false characterization of the data,

How dare you! My honesty is impeccable, and I falsely
characterized nothing; place the blame upon your own
inability to comprehend what you read, where it truly
belongs.

> 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.

Well at last, if only tacitly, you acknowledge that I
at least have actually studied I.E. linguistics before
attempting to comment on it, whereas you clearly have
not.

Don't ever accuse me of dishonesty again, I'm warning
you sir.

David