Re: Verdict on Mann

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2008-11-30 22:33, Andrew Jarrette wrote:
>
> > (If anyone can tell me the occurrences of velars vs. palatals in LIV
> > for comparison, I would greatly appreciate it.)
>
>
> In LIV(2) there are:
>
> 46 roots with initial *k^
> 45 roots with initial *k
> 16 roots with initial *kW
> 29 roots with *k(^), *k(W) or *K, i.e. an indeterminate initial
> voiceless dorsal
>
> 12 roots with initial *g^
> 11 roots with initial *g
> 15 roots with initial *gW
> 14 roots with *g(^), *g(W) or *G
>
> 20 roots with initial *g^H
> 13 roots with initial *gH
> 5 roots with initial *gWH
> 13 roots with *g(^)H, *g(W)H or *G(H)
>
> 4 roots with initial *sk^
> 2 roots with initial *sk^H
> 32 roots with initial *sk
> 4 roots with an uncertain dorsal after *s
> no examples of initial *skW
> (mobile and non-mobile *s conflated)
>
> 1 root with initial *(s)gW
> 1 root with initial (s)gWH
>
> As LIV has an index a tergo, it's also easy to count the dorsals in the
> root-final position:
>
> 41 *k^
> 60 *k
> 16 *kW
> 12 uncertain
>
> 25 *g^
> 44 *g
> 16 *gW
> 18 uncertain (almost exclusively *g(^))
>
> 26 *g^H
> 24 *gH
> 10 *gWH
> 9 uncertain (7 of them with *g(^)H)
>
> [I can't guarantee that all the numbers are strictly correct; I was
> counting the entries quickly.]
>
> Counting dictionary entries may, however, be misleading for a

variety of

> reasons. For example, many of the reconstructions are regarded as
> doubtful even by the LIV editors (not to mention Yours Truly), and

quite

> a few are restricted to one (!) or two branches. Then, even if a

root is

> correctly reconstructed, it does not mean that it was frequently

used by

> the IE-speakers. Although we have no texts in which we could count PIE
> tokens rather than types, the predominance of *k^ (and even *kW)

over *k

> is visible in typical high-frequency items such pronouns and other
> grammatical words, the IE numerals, the most securely attested
> verb-roots, etc.
>
> Piotr
>

Thank you for replying (and especially if you actually did all the
counting!). So you're probably still of the opinion that IE didn't
really have distinct palatal and velar series (I know that at one
point in past messages you have said that you believe they may have
been distinct, but were velars vs. uvulars, not palatals vs. velars --
do you still think this is the most probable scenario for PIE?). The
reason why I ask is because in order for me to decide which of my IE
conlangs I will fully develop (and I will choose the most believable
and plausible one), I need to know whether palatals and velars were
truly distinct -- which will help determine the believability and
plausibility of the phonology of one conlang over another. I did
search the archives for all previous messages on this topic, but there
was no conclusive statement from anyone about the legitimacy of the
palatal:velar distinction. I know I'm dredging up an old beaten topic
and that conlangs have little to no importance to almost all people,
so if you don't bother to reply it's OK, you've given me a lot of
information already.

Andrew