From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61151
Date: 2008-11-01
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...>
I knew that all this has been extensively discussed on Cybalist but I
was hoping that it might be at least somewhat new on pieml, and
therefore would spare me the labour of having to search the archives.
I remember what you and others have said about *k^won and maybe
*ek^wos, and maybe you're right -- can it ever be solidly proven once
and for all?
=============
It's proven once (= for me = 1 person)
I can't speak for others
I'm afraid it's not proven for all !!
Arnaud
==========
>
> I think the opposition of k^ and k does not exist
> but the opposition between g and g^ and gh and g^h exists.
>
Why? Or please direct me to the posting where you explain why you
think so.
===========
Well,
I don't think it's been discussed before (not by me)
Originally I thought there were no differences.
I changed my mind for g and g^ and gh and g^h
I still think that k^ and k is the same thing
k is more frequent when used as a suffix,
the regular expected form is k^, both from */k/.
Arnaud
============
> =======
> This would require that PIE should _first_ have vowel ü
> something that looks highly unlikely (not to say impossible)
>
> But Attic treatment of labio-velars suggests it had ü as a glide.
> It has been discussed on cybalist too.
But ü was a post-PIE phoneme peculiar to Attic in this case, was it not?
=======
Of course so.
A.
==========
> No,
> some languages have three series and you can't merge them into only two.
> I mean Yeniseian for example.
So no descendants of Yeniseian or Proto-Yeniseian merge the three into
two? This doesn't necessarily imply that PIE indeed had all three series.
=======
I believe Yeniseian is IE
I worked on it
and found one definitely needs three series to account for it
That's why I changed my mind.
A.
=========
>
> the name "palatal" and "velar" may be misleading :
> the opposition between g^ and g can be voiced velar g and
glottalized k?.
> all are originally velar.
> The change of place of articulation may be a secondary development of
> eastern dialects.
>
Please direct me to the posting where you discuss this idea, or else
please explain this to me.
========
It's a kind of glottalic approach but
I don't think voiced graphemes b d g g^ should be interpreted as glottalized
p? t? k? k^?
My own approach is :
b < *p? (ok for a glottalized approach)
d < *t? AND *d
g < *k? (ok for a glottalized approach)
BUT
g^ < *g (was voiced)
This needs some comparative work
I've never written this before on the list.
By the way,
if you write to PIEML,
don't expect an answer from me,
The "moderator" (beautiful euphemism for something else) blocked me...
A.
=======
If you ever want to see one, I'll upload it to the files section, if
it is permitted -- the rules of Cybalist actually forbid this sort of
thing. I'll have to ask before I can do any such thing.
Andrew
==========
I'd be interested to get in thru private mails.
A.