[tied] Evening/Night (was Re: The "Mother" Problem)

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

> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:09:21 +0000, whetex_lewx
> <whetex_lewx@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>

wrote:

> >> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:27:23 +0000, whetex_lewx
> >> <whetex_lewx@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why we:k- isn't suggested? weik- makes some mess, it would be
> >> >reflected as vaik-, veik-, vy~k- or viek- in Lith. and

dialects...

> >> >PIE e: is proper for long open Lith. and Lv. vak-
> >>
> >> PIE */e/. *e: would have given Lith. long <e.>. The
> >> development *vèkaras > *vàkaras > va~karas is regular.
> >
> >So what's wrong? I gues you had short e in your mind, because

grave

> >is short
>
> Yes, I meant short /e/. What did you mean?
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

How long-accented vowel can become short-accented vowel???

You wrote "*v['e]karas (grave, short-accented) > *v['a]karas (grave,
short-accented)> *v[a~]karas (circumflex, strong-end-accented). *e:
would have given Lith. long <e.>." (didn't you make mistake?)

So, i guess you wanted write *v[e']k- >*v[a']karas (acute, long-
accented), also i dont understand, how open syllable can be acute.
Open strong-accented syllable always is circumflex.

Why Lith. va~karas, Slav. vec^er can't be related to PIE we:kWer-os?