Horse Sense (was: [tied] Re: Hachmann versus Kossack?)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "David Russell Watson"

<liberty@...> wrote:

>
> Not all people accept three velar columns. I think, and
> I'm not alone, only two are necessary.

Positing two velar columns alone doesn't fix the severe
problem with your claims about *Hek^wo-, though.

> I will add a personal idea : It seems k+w = kw

Obviously. What 'k' + 'w' does NOT = is 'kW'.

> and any velar + H1 + w = *k^w.

On what basis do you make that claim?

> k^w is not a phoneme, just a phonotactical result.

Well of course 'k^w' isn't a phoneme; it's a sequence
of two phonemes. That's the very point you seem unable
to understand when you claim that *k^w should result in
Sanskrit 'k'.

> > Well then you have a lot of correspondences to explain
> > away.
> >
> > Review this post, for a start:
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/41998
>
> interesting, but so what ? I saw no *k^w

What you saw, or should have seen, is the necessity of
three velar columns, as well as the normal outcome in
Sanskrit of each of those velars, that of *k^ being 's^',
as has already been pointed out to you more than once.

The normal outcome of P.I.E. *w in Sanskrit is 'v', and
so if you seriously expect to convince anybody that *k^w
yielded anything beside 's^v' in Sanskrit, you're going
to have to supply a convincing number of examples of that
change.

David