Re: Re[3]: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too

From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 55360
Date: 2008-03-17

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:50:29 +0100, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

>From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>This is Anatolian. One has to be thankful for the data that
>we have.
>This is another way of
>saying we have no proof of contrast :
>is that what is to be understood
>from this statement ?

Have you read Craig Melchert's "Anatolian Historical
Phonolgy"? Get back to me when you have.

>>2. Why has Latin a *short* e in iecur ?
>>We should expect **iacur or **ie:cur
>>if Miguel's theory was right ?
>I have no idea why we should expect *iacur.
>Most languages have *yékWr.(t), Greek and Avestan have
>*yé:kWr.(t). Since it is easy to explain *yé:kWr.(t) >
>*yékWr.(t) and impossible to explain *yékWr.(t) > *yé:kWr.t,
>Greek and Avestan preserve an archaism.
>Strange news.
>So the Germanic Class VI is an archaism !?
>I thought it was an innovation of Germanic.
>So the e: is *we:t is a preserved archaism !?

Class VII is an innovation (outside Gothic). Classes IV, V
and VI probably continue something old.

>The e: in Greek and Av
>can be explained as an innovation.
>What's wrong having a long vowel ?

What needs to be explained is why in this word, and not in
other words of identical structure (like s'ákr.t (*k^ekWr/n)
"shit" or ká "penis").

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal