[tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2007-10-01 00:21, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Isn't that the same /a/ in 1sg am? How is that to be explained
> > then?
>
> Well, it was WS eom < *izmi, Merc. eam and Nbr. am. The latter two
> seem to follow the vocalism of <(e)arþ> in those dialects, and so
> look analogical.

We have
ON em, ert (est), er, erum, eruþ, eru,
OE am, art, is, aru, aru, aru

What part of that can't be explained by analogy? Why do we need a root
*er-?

How come the plural is not zero grade, like it should in a decent IE
language? Is that where the a- is from?


Torsten