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 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Re: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we
discussing?


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

Patrick

More claret than clarity,

***


>