Re: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we discussing?

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we
discussing?


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:36 PM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Re: Not "catching the wind " ,
> or, what ARE we discussing?
>
>
> > On 2008-04-15 12:54, fournet.arnaud wrote:
> >
> >> It was *kuH1on?
> >
> > The comparative evidence points to *k^won-/*k^un-V-/*k^wn.-C-; the rest
> > is guesswork.
> =======
> Comparative evidence from PAA, eskimo-aleut, PU, ST shows *kuH1on? is not
> guess-work.
> But you are sealed off into your tower of orthodoxy.
> Arnaud
> ==========
>
> > In your case, it's guesswork plus violations of Ockham's
> > principle by introducing (entirely ad hoc) "diacritic" segments whose
> > only function is to account for the satem reflexes of *k^.
> =============
> My ockham's razor is one more step to get rid of useless correspondances.
> I keep :
> *g^ to be distinguished into *g and *k?
> *k^ < *k
> *gh
> *gh^ (partly phonotactic g+H2)
> *kw (the same as k+w)
> *gw (idem)
> *ghw (idem)
> *gh^w (idem)
>
> *kh is *k+H1
> *k^w is *k+H1+w
>
> You are on the inflationist side.
> I use 30% less velar proto-phonemes than you.
>
> Arnaud
> ===========

***

Patrick:


You are hopelessly confusing palatalization with aspiration which has not
sound phonological basis.


***