From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 55895
Date: 2008-03-25
>As good as <asgwrn> and other such Celtic words would seem
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Piotr Gasiorowski
>
>On 2008-03-24 23:07, fournet.arnaud wrote:
>
>> You know
>> "sheep" used to be *H3owi
>> "bone" used to be *H3ost-
>>
>> Why is it impossible to assume
>> that ossomai is H1okw-j-e/o
>> denominative from Hokw "eye" ?
>
>OK, but the reconstructions of *h2owi- and *h2ost- have not been emended
>without reason (*h2ast- = //h2est-//, the weak allomorph of *h2ost-, is
>even directly attested in Celtic, and there's some good if less direct
>evidence for *h2awi-). Now, what evidence makes you posit *h1 in 'eye/look'?
>
>Piotr
>
>========
>
>I'm interested to know about *H2ost in Celtic.
>
>Now, the diverse reasons why
>I'm not satisfied with *H3_kw for "eye"
>
>1. opi:peuô is better with H1_kw
>it does not need to be irregular in that case
>It's the one reason within PIE borders I know.
>Another possible reason is *sekw "to see"Besides Hitt. sak(u)wa- "eye" (< PA *sogWo- < PIE *sókWo-)
>if you admit sekw is s-H1_kw
>There is no reason s mobile is impossible
>before a laryngeal.
>4. in view of some languages havingBasque moko is an expressive word of no great antiquity.
>mok "face" (Burushashki, Basque, etc)