--- In email@example.com
, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
> 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
> gh) followed by H1. This contacts created intensive phonemes in
> Central PIE, which possibly were pronounced *[k:w] (long stop with
> release) which is treated like k^+w.
I think your proposed sound change is bizarre, but let me first see if
I understand it. I think you are saying that:
1) What are standardly (or at least, frequently) reconstructed as *kW
(one phoneme) and *k^w (a sequence of two phonemes) and *kw (a
sequence of two phonemes) were not distinct.
2) Immediately pre-PIE sound changes *kw > *kW and *k^w > *kW may
therefore be assumed for those who propose a distinction.
3) In Eastern and Central PIE, we effectively have:
k^h1 > k^w
g^h1 > k^w
gH^h1 > k^w
I then have the following questions and points.
A) We can then immediately recover traditional *ek^wos as, in your
B) How is Western PIE supposed to be different in this respect?
C) Are you truly suggesting that the phonation contrast was lost? We
also have, in traditional terms, different reflexes for *gHW (e.g.
*gHWen 'strike') and *g^Hw (e.g. *g^Hwe:r 'beast').
> I suppose people who disagree will offer examples for counter-analysis.
The obvious examples would be derivative adjectives in -wo- on stems
ending in palatals, but at the moment I can't think of any, let alone
demonstrate that they have not been reformed since PIE.