The UPenn IE Tree (Celtic as PIE)

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 9/2/99 11:39:20 PM, kurisuto at unagi.cis.upenn.edu wrote:
<<-Reconstructed forms were not included in the data.>>

<<Naturally, it _can't_ have been the case that PIE looked like Celtic,
because the other branches would have to undergo some impossible
unmergings....

For example, PIE distinguishes three different series of
dorsal obstruents: the palatals (*k', *g', *g'h), the velars (*k, *g,
*gh), and the labiovelars (*kw, *gw, *gwh). >>

Wait! <<PIE distinguishes three different series of dorsal obstruents>>!!!!

No it doesn't.  Not in the scenario I gave you.  Celtic IS PIE!  It
distinguishes only two.

Just a quick note.  I am surprised you don't get this.  But in this exercise
you can't use reconstructions to disprove an alternate history.  That's
because they already contain the assumptions that you are supposedly testing.
 I'm saying the assumptions in the Stammbaum can just as easily be read
another way.  That means all the reconstructions change.  PIE DOES NOT HAVE
ALL THREE OBSTRUENTS in my scenario.  Remember?  Because my scenario is that
Celtic IS PIE - from day one.

If you don't presume those reconstructions, things work out very differently.
 Especially in your Stammbaum that "includes no reconstructions."

<<Only one IE language preserves this three-way distinction intact (namely,
Luvian of the Anatolian group);

That's it.  That's all you have to work with that represnts 3 obstruents.
But it doesn't preserve anything.  And I'll let Luwian be a sister to Celtic
in my hypothetical.  Or call Luwian an innovation.  BUT there is NO unmerging
at this point since Celtic/PIE NEVER had three obstruents.  Remember?  Celtic
= PIE in this new Stammbaum.

No look at what happens:
<<Celtic, like most of the European IE languages, merges the palatal series
with the velar series.  Indo-Iranian, on the other hand, merges the velars
and the labiovelars.>>

So, how many mergers does that leave that would have to be unmerged if Celtic
were the hypothetical parent?  Again, Celtic never merged palatal and velar.
Because Celtic IS PIE.   So you call whatever is unique in IIr an innovation.
 (An unshared innovation.)  And your problem is solved.  Isn't it?  No
unmergings needed.

I was always talking about how the Stammbaum would change and about the real
data you were using..  My scenario mades Celtic equal PIE specifically to
reveal the kind of assumptions being made that might go beyond the data.  You
stucvk the assumptions back in there.

So you see you've demonstrated no "impossible" unmergings.

Regards,
Steve Long