Re: Reasons (was [tied] Re: Some thoughts...)

--- Sean Whalen <stlatos@...> wrote:

>
> --- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> > What do you posit things like *f for --
> just
> > for the sake of
> > symmetry, or on some concrete evidence?

> mv for acc shows why metathesized -fmv>-mvf needs
> no vowel(same
> place of articulation) and mv>xv after nasal will
> provide explanation for -r/-n neuters (with later
> rules) and saxa`lmv>saxwa`l>saxwe'l. Sr-/str- is
> explained by sr>str and f>s, without pl -f I'd get
> Vms>V:m by my rules for acc pl. -fi>-fu explains
> different loc sng and pl.

Also, the analogy I proposed changing nom -f to -fs
solves -o:s without stage like -oes. If pl were -s in
nom and voc, little chance of analogy giving nom -ss.

The first evidence to get me thinking was Finnish
nom pl -(e)t, 2 sng -t. If related by theta, what
would the pronunciation be in PIE? Th>f (not only
source) makes a very balanced phonology that answered
all my questions.




_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com