> > arbor = doru
>
> Any particular reason for connecting these two, other than the meaning?
> =================
> The same reason as for dakru = akru
> ================
The conditions are noth the same here. *h2ak^ru- and *dak^ru- are
identical except for the onset, while <arbor> and *...oru are not
directly relatable.
============
Tsalam? t?ob
I cited Tokharian ore "tree"
ore and doru are directly relatable !?
Arnaud
================
> Why should it be H1 ?
Hitt. a:rras, with no <h>.
================
Well
this is a *weak* reason
I disagree with this ultra simplified analysis of Anatolian.
Arnaud
===============
> I disagree with this statement "not supported".
> And it sounds strange : you agreed with D-akru = Hakru
I agreed that the reconstructions were correct so you have ONE example
of a word with or without an initial *d-. I don't agree this is evidence
for a suffix. English has a non-etymological /n-/ in <newt> (~ <eft>)
and <nickname> and LACKS an expected /n/ in <apron> and <adder>, but
this is not sufficient evidence for positing an n-prefix in English and
compare it with something in Georgian or Amharic.
Piotr
===============
I agree with this.
An alternative explanation to akru = dakru
could also be to posit a new phonetic correspondence.
I won't do that.
The fact is : this case is not at all isolated.
Arnaud
================