From: Âàäèì Ïîíàðÿäîâ
>> Unfortunately, I don't know in what languages the reflexes of*wl.p- exist,
> Germanic wulfaz, Latin lupus.
> p is regular."water". We see *akW- in Latin, but *ap- in Sanscrit. If here the reflexes of *pW are found, the following soundlaw has to exist: *pW > Lat. kW, Scr. p. But if so, we must expect *wl.pW > Scr. vr.p-, but really Sanscrit has vr.k-. So, such a reconstruction gives nothing here.
>> so I'll take another example: *akW- ~ *ap-
>It's not that simple. We know that in Germanic we often
>> Hittite 2sg. -ti is the hi-conjugation ending,presumably
>> from *-th2a-i. Even if it were from *-th2-idirectly, that
>> does not consitute evidence against the solidsoundlaw *ti >
>> (z)zi: the cluster *th2 might simply have mergedwith *dh
>> here, and the regular outcome is *dhi > ti (and *di >si).
>mi-conjugation, and as it is obligatory with them, it is not possible to see here only the influence of the hi-paradigm.
>Hittite 2sg. -ti is used also with some verbs of
> We were talking about -t in the second person, not about-s
> *-o:i comes from contraction ofthematic vowel -o- + dative
> ending -ei. In the ins.pl., it comesfrom the plural
> oblique *-oy- + -s(W) (cf. athematic -bhi-s(W)),affected by
> Szemerényi's lengthening law (*-oy-s >*-o:ys).
> That doesn't explain away the fact that the diphthong-o:i
> was certainly a phoneme at some stage in e.g.pre-(Balto-)Slavic. It gives -ui in Lithuanian, and -u/-y-
> inSlavic. I have interpreted the Slavic development (-u in
> theabsolute Auslaut, -y when followed by *-h < *-s) as
> containing apre-Slavic phoneme ô (analogical to <yat'> ê),
>realized at first as /o:/, /e:/ and later as the falling
> diphthongs/úo/, /íe/ ~ /ía/ (and then -úo > -u and -uoh
> -u:h > -y). Unlike *ê, the phoneme *ô
> occurred in grammatical endings.