Re: a discussion on OIT

----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 7:19 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: a discussion on OIT


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jsjonesmiami" <jsjonesmiami@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
> wrote:

<...>

D) There were originally velars, which had allophones c^e/ko etc, and
labiovelars, which had allophones ke/kWo etc. Both satem and kentum
languages got rid of the allophone alternation in paradigms, the satem
languages by generalizing the former allophone, the kentum ones by
generalizing the latter.

I've tried to sketch how it could be done
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/PIEstops/PIEstopsCurrent.html
it's definitely not definitive. Please ignore the gunk at the bottom.


Torsten

***

Patrick:

We see now how inappropriate it is to call [k] a velar. It is a dorsal
which, by the influence of the following vowel, could be actually stopped at
a palatal position, palato-velar, or velar position.

PIE 'palatals' derive from _dorsals_ + *e/*i.

PIE 'velars' derive from _dorsals_ + *o/*u and *a.

PIE 'labiovelars' are _not_ the corresponding dorsal + *o/*u but derive from
dorsal fricatives ([*G/*x]).

***