Re: [tied] *ekwos and friends

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:47:43 -0700 (PDT), george knysh
<gknysh@...> wrote:

>--- Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
>> *ek^wos would have given Slavic *eswU or *oswU.
>
>*****GK: Yahoo cut out as my message was going out. So
>I'll briefly repeat it and ask for your indulgence. My
>question: Are you saying that "satemization" works
>universally and absolutely in languages affected by
>it, and that there are no examples in these languages
>of words which escaped the process?****

There are exceptions in native (Balto-)Slavic words, but this is not
one of them, judging by Lithuanian <es^va>, <as^va> "mare".

Other exceptions occur in words borrowed from "centum" languages, but
we would rather expect horse vocabulary to be borrowed from the steppe
(cf. Russ. loshad', merin), i.e. from languages that, if they were IE,
were satem. In any case, that's how this discussion started
(Indo-Iranian loans in Slavic).