--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > The Greek change is independent of any borrowing. There would also
> > be kt>kk or k (ark(t)os); is that from borrowing?
>
> Beekes has k/kt as his alternation 1b which he explains by merging it
> with his alternation 5b kt/sk which he explains by positing a
> consonant capable of becoming both s and t (explaining kt as
> metathesized tk), as well as lost altogether, namely tY.
What about kW>kY>tY>t before front V? If py > pt includes stages
with pY (very likely), wouldn't ty>tYy and similar changes have
occurred earlier? Probably also ti>tYi>sYi>si in dialects. I don't
think there's any stage in which a foreign borrowing with tY could
enter Greek when there was no tY. This theory doesn't explain
anything that needs an explanation: some dialects had some late
changes involving some Ct clusters; there's nothing non-Greek about it.
In order to defend this theory you've had to say that obviously IE
words are really loans. There's nothing about any change that shows
foreign influence; there are simple sound changes in the dialects of
almost every language. Some words without certain etymologies also
undergo these changes: that doesn't mean that they are definitely
borrowed or that ONLY borrowed words undergo these changes; neither is
there any evidence that these are really alternations from borrowing
foreign phonemes.
> I wasn't
> aware of an alternation arkos/arktos, but if so, the "bear" word is a
> loan in IE., which would explain the s Latin ursus.
Oh? So this isn't just a theory of loans into Greek in Greece? I
don't accept anything about the earlier formation and this is even
less likely.