> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@>
> > In my opinion,
> > *k^ is regular
> > *k seems to be rare, or related to post-PIE creations or
> > *kw should be the same as *k+*wvelar
> > *k^w is according to my proposal the phonotactic result of any
> (k, g,if
> > gh) followed by H1. This contacts created intensive phonemes in
> Eastern and
> > 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
> I understand it. I think you are saying that:*kW
> 1) What are standardly (or at least, frequently) reconstructed as
> (one phoneme) and *k^w (a sequence of two phonemes) and *kw (aWe
> 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
> understanding, *ek^h1os.
> B) How is Western PIE supposed to be different in this respect?
> C) Are you truly suggesting that the phonation contrast was lost?
> also have, in traditional terms, different reflexes for *gHW (e.g.analysis.
> *gHWen 'strike') and *g^Hw (e.g. *g^Hwe:r 'beast').
> > I suppose people who disagree will offer examples for counter-
> 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
> demonstrate that they have not been reformed since PIE.Eric P. Hamp, _Homenaje Tovar_ [Madrid 1972], pp. 177-80, regards