Re: [tied] *gWerh3- "to devour"

Piotr:

>I have my doubts as regards *h3 as well, but I tend to keep them
>for myself,

It's a good idea to keep thoughts to oneself. That way, they don't
get challenged and nobody learns :)

>In the case of *gWerh3-, an o-present is hard to posit. Latin
>vor- and Gk. bor- may well owe their /o/ to colouring in a
>strongly labialised environment,[...]

Looks like "may" is the operative word here. It would seem simpler
to accept that the underlying verb was *o-grade here, wouldn't it?
Under what process does this colouring occur?

>[...] while Slavic *z^er-ti, Lith. g�rti, Av. jaraiti are e-grade forms.
>Even in Greek we have some uncoloured forms such
>as Ion. b�retHron, Arc. d�retHron 'gullet'.

Is there some unwritten rule that *o-grade verbs can't adopt an
*e-grade? Why would these particular examples be "uncoloured"? Is
"coloured/uncoloured" an indirect way of saying "qualitative
ablaut"?


- gLeN


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com