"centum"/"satem" "exceptions" [was Re: Northwest IE attributes]

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Xavier and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Xavier Delamarre" <xdelamarre at siol.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 6:41 PM

> Rich Alderson wrote (answering Rick Mc Callister)

>> Since then, it has been argued that PIE had either (1) palatals and velars,
>> and labiovelars are a late development, or (2) plain velars and labiovelars,
>> and palatals are a late development.  Today's consensus view seems to be a
>> third alternative, that PIE had palatals and labiovelars, and plain velars
>> are an odd development of one or both.

> This is not true at all. There is no consensus for a two-series system of
> tectals (whatever the arrangement).

<snip>

> The consensus seems to be, contrary to what stated, in favor of  three
> tectals for IE, as posited more than one century ago by our dear
> Neo-grammarians.

Pat comments:

Personally, I am committed to a three-tectal (I would prefer 'dorsal')
arrangement for reasons that are broached in Miguel's interesting recent
posting.

However, the real crux here is not what you or I or Rich believe is true but
what the majority of IEists believe.

Well you may well be correct in your view of the consensus so may Rich also
so long as no systematic survey of IEist opinion has been made and
documented.

Do you not agree? The articles you cited might have convinced you and many
others but not had that affect on other readers.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th
St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ek,
at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim meipi er
mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)