From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>--- In email@example.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>I simply meant to show a trace of a laryngeal before a
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:14:32 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
>> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>> > If you have at least one argument against this rule post it
>> >It will be simple: a trace of a laryngeal preserved in that position.
>> sva:dús "sweet" < *sweh2dús, etc.
>Miguel, with the above example...I hope that you not try to treat
>Lubotsky as a pure idiot.
>I will quote for you what the rule is and the additional explanations:As mentioned in LIV, this is a nasal present from the root
>The roots of all above-mentioned words contain a final unaspirated
>voiced stop, preceded by a laryngeal, and, äs I have shown elsewhere
>laryngeals were lost in Sanskrit before mediae, WHEN THE WHOLE CLUSTER
>WAS FOLLOWED BY A CONSONANT.
>In the same article I considered the exceptions
>to this ruie. Here I only mention, that the presents svadati,
>bhajati and radati were originally athematic, äs is evident from, e.g., theBut none of these verbs contained a laryngeal (LIV *bhag-
>Vedic forms bhaksi and ratsi.