From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>My theory is as follows, which is much more involved and mostlyWhy "heap"?
>lacking in easy parenthetic reconstructions and ad hoc slice-and-dice
> Late IE Late-Mid IE Old IE IndoTyrr
> c.5000-4000 c.6000-5000 c.7000-6000 c.9000-7000
>1. *sem- *same "heap" *same "heap" --
> *dus- "bad" *t:ëu *t:ëu *t:ëuWhat has "1" to do with "bad"? What is this <t:> anyway?
> -- *t:ë- *t:ë *t:ë?
>2. *dwo:u *t:Waxë -- --
> *dwix *t:Wëixë *t:Wëi *t:Wëi
> *dwo- *t:Wa- *t:Wa *t:Wë
>3. *treies *kWëlëiës *kWëlëi *k:Wël
>4. *kWetwores *kWëtWarës *kWatWën --Where does the o- (*h3o-, *h1o-...?) come from? Why not **kWVt ->
> *kWet(w)e- *kWëtWë- *kWatWë *kWat:Wa
>5. *penkWe *pënkWë *pënkWë *pënkWë
>6. *swek^s *swëksë *swëksë (?)
>7. *septm *sëptëm *sëptëm (?)
>8. *ok^to:u *kWëtWaxe *kWëtWaxë (?)
>9. *neun *nëurë *nëurë (?)-r > -n ???? You gotta be joking.
>10. *dek^m *t:ëkëm *t:ëkëm *t:ë-kamWhere does the *wi: come from?
>20. *wi:k^mtix *këmtëixë *kamës(kamët-) *kamët
>How *penkWe derives from *kem(t)kwe and how that makes much sense*kemt-/*komt- is "hand". "One, two, three, four, and the hand..."
>semantically is beyond me.
>Why does *r in *treies derive from *lSeems to me you're suggesting the same thing [*treies < *kWëlëiës],
>in this instance but not others?
>What is the rule behind this? Why*u > *we. Labialization is later sporadically lost, especially on
>does *u sometimes beget IE *We (*putu-(w)a:r(?)-atu > *kWetwores)
>and sometimes *e (*du-kam(a)t- > *dekm) and sometimes from *e,
>ignoring for the moment the obscene *p>*kW problem? Why do youBecause this is all speculation. Trying to reconstruct back from PIE
>keep using parentheses and question marks everywhere?
>That's a bigI prefer Verner.
>hint that you fail to devise consistant sound rules just like
>Dolgopolsky! Not very Grimm-like, is it? Grimm had rules and that's
>why people like him.