[tied] Re: again Slavic "dragU"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:51:08 +0000, Abdullah Konushevci
> <a_konushevci@...> wrote:
>
> >I guess that you are aware of liquids' metathesis in South-Slavic
> >languages, which, I think, can't affect as diphthongs as vowels.
>
> We are aware of the liquid metathesis. It affects the
> _diphthongs_ /el/, /er/, /ol/ (or */al/), /or/ (or */ar/).

[AK]
We have completly different view about diphthongs.

>
> >So,my reconstruction of protoform *dHo:rgHU 'dear', as an

metathetic

> >variant of contracted and lengthened form of *dHrougH- seems very
> >convincible
>
> It's not convincing at all, it's nonsense. The P(B)S form
> underlying "dear" is *dargas (an o-stem, not a u-stem!), the
> form underlying "friend" is *draugas. There is absolutely
> positively no way they can be connected. The "friend" root
> may have Ablaut variants *drug- or *dreug-, but never
> *darg-. The "dear" word may have Ablaut variants *derg- or
> *dr.g-, but never *draug-.

[AK]
The golden rule is, when someone start to write something, to pay
attention to the title (see the title of the thread: Re: again
Slavic "dragU'!).
But, over all, never say never! In science it's really nonsense.

>
> >, after we see that regular outcome of /*o:/ > /a/ (it was
> >my mistake that I follow Mr. Vidal and you that /*o:/ can't yields
> >Slavic /a/, see previous messages).

[AK]
In previous messages, if my memory don't fail, you have claimed that
PIE /*o:/ never (!) yields Slavic /a/.

>
> Of course PIE */o:/ gives Slavic /a/. The problem is that
> there is no */o:/ in *dargas (> Pol. drog-, Russ. dorog-,
> SSl. drag-).

[AK]
For the first time I saw that someone reconstruct protoform *dargas.

>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

Konushevci