> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:15:47 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
> > So Next, you will say that we have h3 in Skt. bu:-t'i (< *buh2-
> >too?1. Miguel I quoted it correctly -> don't make confusions between 2
> That's not a very good counter-example: it's *bhÃºh2-tis >
> Skt. bhÃº:tis, Grk. phÃºsis.
> More challenging is *bhuh2-tÃ³-, where we would expect'Good explanation' Miguel => another one to add on the "barba:tus"-
> *bhuthÃ³- > Skt. *buthÃ¡-, Grk. *puthÃ³-. In fact, we *do* have
> an otherwise unexplained short -u- in Greek phutÃ³n (and also
> phÃºsis). Olsen's theory explains this quite adequately. How
> do you? All we need to assume further is a slightly
> irregular application of Grassmann's law (*bhuthÃ³- >
> bhutÃ³-), and restoration of /u:/ in Sanskrit.
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal