On 2006-05-24 13:12, Mate Kapović wrote:
> How can *k' become a fricative or an affricate and then be converted back
> to a *k by depalatalization? It must have still been *k', *kY or some sort
> of palatalized, fronted /k/ after the break up. It couldn't have been *s,
> *s^, *ts, *T etc.
I certainly didn't propose that a _fricative_ should have been
convertible back into *k. I meant a kind of predorso-palatal stop that
may still count as dorsal in terms of distinctive features ("ky", if you
like). Such sounds are often non-distinctively affricated because of the
extensive area of contact between the articulators, making it difficult
to release the stop abruptly. Their _further_ history in the daughter
branches would have run along the typical trajectories.
> Proto-Satem is a myth, especially when we consider Albanian, Armenian and
> Luwian. If one had a formula *k' =/= *k = *kW everywhere, one could say
> that it was a common innovation, but since this does not apply everywhere,
> it is obvious that centum and satem developments were later trivial
> independent innovations.
I find it hard to believe that all the satem developments are
independent (except for the Luwian palatalisations), given the fact that
the dialects affected by them were more or less contiguous. At the very
least we have a wave of innovations spreading across neighbouring
languages. Add to that the RUKI treatment of *s, which unites the "core
Satem" groups (BSl. and IIr.)
> Certainly not. kl- is from *k'low- and s(^)l- is from *k'lew-.
Nevertheless, in Slavic we only have the satemised forms (also in
reflexes of *k^lou-, *k^luHs-, etc.), while some of the Baltic reflexes
have reverted to /k/ (for whatever reason). This means that the
palatalisation was still reversible in Proto-BSl times.
Piotr