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

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 57410
Date: 2008-04-15

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:16 PM
Subject: [Courrier ind├ęsirable] Re: Re: [tied] 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 ind├ęsirable] 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.
>
>
> ***

I'm saying there is no palatal *k^ nor non-palatal *k
just *k.
I use ^ for clarity's sake,
not a gimmick to indicate whatever palatal feature,
I might be read carefully...

Arnaud
============