Re: Horse Sense

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 57291
Date: 2008-04-14

>> 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.

>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.
Not exactly,
*kW and *k+w (and *k+u) are the same.
*k^w is same thing else, which I propose is K+H1+w (three segments)

>2) Immediately pre-PIE sound changes *kw > *kW and *k^w > *kW may
>therefore be assumed for those who propose a distinction.
This has nothing to do with pre-PIE.

>3) In Eastern and Central PIE, we effectively have:
>k^h1-w > k^w
> g^h1-w > k^w
> gH^h1-w > 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.
I have already stated this word is not PIE.
I think the adjective H1eku existed,
and when (domesticated) horses entered Eastern IE languages (German and
a derivative nominal was created *H1eku-os
That's what I think.

>B) How is Western PIE supposed to be different in this respect?
Western PIE has no intensive consonants : any K+H1 = *k

>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').
This is different.
I agree there were more than one *gh.
My own system has three origins for *gh.
one for *gh, two for *gh^.