From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 57277
Date: 2008-04-14
----- Original Message -----
From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:20 PM
Subject: 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:
<snip>
> 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.
***
Patrick:
Yes, it is rare. I resisted the correspondence when I first saw the
comparative data pattern. After trying every other alternative, I was forced
to accept.
A back velar would have made much more sense.
During the Pontic period of glides and neutral *a, *kWa would have been the
outcome of an earlier *ko. Perhaps, this sequence was phonemicized and
generalized. When glides went the way of the wind, *kW and *gW were
available for new employment.
Why?
Because the earliest PIE speakers seem to have been voiceless spirant-shy:
no *f, no *x/ç. You will mention Hittite <h> as [x]; its employment for all
notated 'laryngeals' suggests strongly Hittite <h> was [h] not [x].
***
> 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.
***
Patrick:
I wondered about that, too. The better notation would have been *k(^)WH.
***
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.
***
Patrick:
I acknowledge the suggestion.
***
> 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
***
Patrick:
I believe I have done that above.
***