Grzegorz:
> So, there is virtually no base for Latin os, costa,
> Greek osteon < *H2o-.
As Miguel has pointed out, you are neglecting simple
ablaut variation between *e and *o which exposes the
true nature of the laryngeal as *h2, not *h3.
> Because only o-forms are known, we _must_ assume
> *H3 here.
No, the logical thing to do is rather to assume
nothing at all. So we'd mark it merely as *hX
(unspecified number) until we can further elaborate.
> Hehe, and you should prove that *k was *q in fact,
> and especially that *g was *G.
Markedness has proven it. You remain deaf. I can do
no more. If someone wishes to arrogantly challenge the
entire field of linguistics, what am I to do to lead
them back to normalcy? It is up to them to lead
themselves back.
> Not dialectal. Forms with *k and *H exist side by
> side, like in Latin os / costa or Slavic koza /
> azIno.
Yes, but that still doesn't mean that it's not
dialectal. Some forms of English adopt multiple
variants of the same word from originally seperate
dialects. Some say "Choozday", others "Toozday",
for "Tuesday". Simple dialectal merger.
The fact that there is any alternation between *k and
*h2 at all shows that they are even likelier to be
of the same marked series, however we may define it.
> 5) and finally, what is evidence for *q/*G/*Gh in
> long-range linguistics
Now we need to speak about my theory of Mid IE which
is based on Bomhardian Nostratic. In my view, /k./
is merely an allophone of *k and there is no basis
to add *q to the earlier inventory based on IE. Both
IE *k and *q would derive from Proto-Steppe *k only.
Within the sphere of IE-Uralic-Altaic, there is no
credible support for a phoneme *q distinct from *k,
unless you're willing to show me otherwise :)
= gLeN
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com