Re: [tied] Albanian as a satem langauge

alex wrote:

> I have nothing against g^Hesr- > dor-; I just underline the word is in
> Rom. stil with "g" , see "gheara"

So it can't be the same word as <dorë> and any similarity is most likely
accidental. I can't see how you could get from *g^Hesr- to <ghearã> via
_any_ identifiable intermediaries, despite their superficial resemblance.

>>There is no such thing as PIE *g^embHos. Gk. gompHos, Germanic
>>*kambaz, Slavic *zo~bU, Lith. z^ambas and Toch. A kam, B keme
>>unequivocally require the reconstruction *g^ómbH-o-. Skt. jambHa- is
>>consistent with it, and so are Alb. dhëmb, dhâmb as the regular
>>reflexes of PAlb. *3a~b- < *g^ombHos.
>
>
> Which one of these languages speaks against a long "o:" in g^Homb - ?

What would you need it for? What evidence supports it? What facts does
it explain? *g^ombHo- is not only the simplest reconstruction that
directly accounts for _all_ the forms I quoted; it's also the form that
makes full sense as a regular IE derivative of the verb root *g^embH-
'crush, cut, bite' (less widespread than the noun it underlies, but well
preserved in Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian). The reconstruction is
therefore descriptively and explanatorily adequate.

Piotr