Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar Approximant

--- On Sat, 11/1/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> Subject: [tied] Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar Approximant
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, November 1, 2008, 5:19 PM
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> >
> > On 2008-11-01 21:46, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> >
> > > Doesn't work either. Unstressed -we- or -wo-
> doesn't give -u-.
> >
> > They do. For example, the root *swe(:)p-
> 'sleep' has the zero grade
> > *sup-, as in *sup-no-; the zero grade of *h2weks-
> 'grow' is *h2uks-
> > (as in Skt. uks.ant-); the zero grade of *weg^H- is
> *ug^H- (RV
> > uha:na-). Lots of similar examples could be given,
> including, of
> > course, *k^won-/*k^un-.
>
> We're talking different things. Of course PIE -we-
> gives -u- in zero
> grade morphologically. I'm saying that unstressed -we-
> or -wo- -> -u-
> doesn't make much sense phonetically. I'd like to
> see an example of it
> elsewhere.
>
>
> Torsten

Perhaps it's more like Spanish, where /u/ > /w/ when paired with a vowel (unless marked otherwise).
Or perhaps, it really is /k^wn-/ and /swp-no/