From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 57215
Date: 2008-04-13
----- Original Message -----
From: "jouppe" <jouppe@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 2:39 PM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Horse Sense (was: [tied] Re: Hachmann versus
Kossack?)
One could also look at it this way:
1) The opposition between */kW/ and */k^/ is a common one in PIE and
not controversial. The latter phoneme (whether it originally was
palatovelar or plain velar) is thus well established in PIE. It
regularly corresponds to sibilants in satem-languages.
2) The phoneme */w/ is equally well established
- Anybody who claims that these two phonemes could not occur in a
sequence has the burden of proof, especially since the data (message
49948) suggest that the sequence was possible.
The existence of an acoustically not-too-unlike phoneme */kW/ should
not blur us from methodological rigour here. In the end, we do not
even know how reconstructed phonemes sounded like phonetically. Hence
bringing phonetic similarity into the argument exposes us to
potential confusion.
Jouppe
===========
In my opinion,
*k^ is regular
*k seems to be rare, or related to post-PIE creations or suffixations.
*kw should be the same as *k+*w
*k^w is according to my proposal the phonotactic result of any velar (k, g,
gh) followed by H1. This contacts created intensive phonemes in Eastern and
Central PIE, which possibly were pronounced *[k:w] (long stop with delayed
release) which is treated like k^+w.
I suppose people who disagree will offer examples for counter-analysis.
Arnaud
===========