From: Jens Elmegård Rasmussen
Message: 49141
Date: 2007-06-24
>wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@>
> > > >,
> > > >
> > > > > - For ukthá-, there is also the possible model of *wr.thó-
> > > > > continued in Lat. verbum and OE word from underlying*wr.H1-tó-,
> > > > > the ptc. of the verbal root *werH1- seen in Gk.eíro: 'speak',
> > > > > rhé:to:r 'speaker'.only
> > > > > This is of course mere guesswork, not any kind of proof.
> > > >
> > > > I thought verbum, word would point to *wr.-dhó- ??
> > >
> > > They do, or in my theory *v(e)rdhóm, but with the theory that
> > > h()t>tH was PIE it becomes a possibility.
> >
> > What on earth does that mean?
>
> I mean:
>
> I believe PIE had dh in this word.
>
> If a person who believed in h()t>tH made a reconstruction based
> on Latin and Germanic, it could instead be derived as *wr.H1-tó-(above).
>actual
> I don't believe this; I believe the other possible cognates are
> cognates.but I
>
> My specific reconstruction shows that it had either e or 0 in the
> first syl., ve>vo in some env. in Baltic, etc.
>
> > > I think someone speculated about tH>d in Balto-Slavic, too,
> > > really don't believe it.dH
> >
> > And -dh- comes in where?
>
> I derive the word from a from with dH; I don't believe tH>d.
>
> If someone derives the word from a form containing tH instead of
> then it doesn't come in anywhere (unless a specific rule hastH>dH>d
> as intermediates).Do we have a pre-BSl. rule changing th to dh after sonant (or just
>