[tied] Re: Mi- and hi-conjugation in Germanic

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

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:00:42 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer
> <mcv@...> wrote:
>
> >>The word ve^dró is a vrddhi formation *we:d-r-ó- 'associated

with

> >>water'.
> >
> >I doubt it. The length looks like Winter's law.
>
> *wed-rom can of course be vrddhi of *ud-. *wedróm >
> *we:dróm by Winter's law. The jábloko-rule probably does
> not apply because of the mobility in the paradigm: the
> plural was barytonic *wé:dra: (or perhaps even *wédra:, cf.
> R. vëdra). A non-mobile word like *jugóm, *jugáh2 > *ju:gó,
> *ju:gá: was affected, hence i"go, i"ga.

You are just saying you *could* have an example favouring your rule.
That is not enough, we need one that *must* have passed through the
change predicted by your rule.

Jens