Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))
>If all Latin words with non-ablauting /a/ are borrowed, then all(b) The main argument for the existence of plain velars in PIE is the
>Latin words with <ca-> are borrowed. But the occurrence of /a/ after
>supposed plain velars in Latin was the main argument for the
>existence of those plain velars in PIE! So:
>Plain velars don't exist!
Centum /k/ ~ Satem /k/
It has nothing to do with the vowel that follows.
(a) A number of ca- words in Latin show an impeccable PIE pedigree, eg capio
~ Germanic have. Calens / Kalens ~ kaleo in Greek. canis ~ kuo:n in
Greek. I don't think you can say all Latin words with <ca-> are borrowed!
> Another thing about Bomhard: how come there are no context-sensitiveIn defense of Bomhard, I still think did a better job than
> palatalisations in his rules over several millenia, when Slavic alone
> had three or four?
anything else I've come across from the older works of IS or
I don't expect him to find all the rules at once but I do
think that proper analysis of each individual language family
is lacking in Nostratic. It's a large task to get very
familiar and educated on more than one proto-language afterall.
There's just so much to read. I'm still learning about crazy
things in IE that throw me for a theoretical loop.
> BTW Holger Pedersen has the same idea of breaking up all PIEBut not for IE where *deiwo- or *dyeu- is reconstructed. These
> consonant clusters in a short remark about future trends (using
> <deus> and <divus>, supposedly from *däjäwä-) in his History of
> Linguistics in the 19th century. Cuny uses it too. (Written as
syllabics can only be reconstructed into a pre-IE stage.