Re: [tied] Laryngeal theory as an unnatural

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
> >>Yeah, so what? Armenian and... what? If Armenian is the only
> >>language you can come up with for evidence, you're talking
> >>bullsh*t.
> >
> >I assumed you were familiar with the evidence. I gave the
> >Armenian forms as they are the clearest evidence for an oblique
> >root *pk^w-. Besides Armenian, we have Sanskrit ks^u, Avestan -

fs^u, fs^u-

> >in compositis [blah, blah, blah]
>
> And I assumed that you understood sound laws. Sanskrit does not
> reflect your original genitive **pk^w-os. So yet again, I ask
> what your point is?? We're talking about PARADIGMS, not
> compounds. For pete's sakes, why on earth are you showing me
> compounds??? Do you understand what a declensional paradigm is?
> How does what you're saying relate to a declensional paradigm??

gLeN, could you please be more polite to Miguel when he fails to see
your point. When you become rude, he becomes pedantic, and useful
discussion ceases.

How do you account for the vowelless root morphs in compounds? Are
you suggesting that there was a synchronic rule converting e-grade
morphs to zero grade in compounds? Is disbelief in such a rule why
Miguel thinks the restoration of a vowel is later than PIE?

Richard.