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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

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

<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

>
> > 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.
>
> You have no basis for that opinion.
>
> Although a few *k(^)W-

What would 'k(^)W' represent? Uppercase 'w' represents
labialization, not a separate phoneme, and so the units
*k^ and *kW, and the sequences *k^w, *kw, or *kWw are
all possible, but *k^W is impossible and meaningless in
the standard system of notation.

> seem to be derived from *k(^) = *w,

You mean *k(^) + *w. Don't you?

If so, what examples are there of *kW derived from an
earlier sequence of a velar followed by *w?

> the far greater number derive from a phoneme that was
> probably realized as [x]/[ç].

What makes you imagine so? There's no evidence of the
velar stops deriving from earlier fricatives. In fact
that would be an extremely rare sort of sound change.

> When any *H is added to this phoneme, the result is *k(^)Hw-,

Now you switch to lowercase for your 'w', which, using
notation properly, would indicate that the velar is no
longer labialized, and that an additional phoneme has
appeared at the end of your cluster in the form of *w.

So are you using notation incorrectly, or are you indeed
claiming that a laryngeal following a labio-velar caused
the loss of its labial component and the creation of a *w
on the other side of the laryngeal?

> which was subsequently resolved to *k(^)W-.

Now you return again to using uppercase 'w', which would
mean, after all is said and done, that the addition of a
laryngeal to a velar results in the laryngeal's complete
disappearance without any effect whatsoever on the velar
itself, the unattested stages you cite not withstanding.

> As for examples, how can counterexamples be meaningfully offered
> when no examples have been provided?

That's correct. Please do provide examples to back your
claims here, and clarify what was intended with your non-
standard notations.

David