From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 55927
Date: 2008-03-25
----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
On 2008-03-25 18:35, fournet.arnaud wrote:
> I kindof believe there is no conclusive data
> to sort out H3e- or any Ho- in H_kw.
> Am I wrong ?
*-h3kW-o- is frequent as the second member of compounds (*X-h3kW-o-
means 'looking like X, X-like'). As the first element often ends in *-i,
the variation *-i:kWo-/*-jo:kWo- (the latter in the "breaking"
languages, the former elsewhere) demonstrates that this particular root
has *h3. And since there's no compelling semantic or formal reason to
separate it from the root of 'eye, see', the burden of the proof is on
anyone who suggests such a distinction.
Piotr
==============
If "eye" and "see" are one thing,
they have nothing in common with "face"
but some vague anatomic "contiguity",
The burden of proof is about as heavy
for the "lumpers".
Why not add *akwa to the group
because "eyes" are obviously always
wet, as a matter of that,
akru < akw (-r- infix) suggests all
this big lumping could be H2_kw.
Dear Piotr,
As you have no clear argument,
you are now saying that it must be true
because it's been rehearsed often enough
to be held as true until now.
Habits are not proofs.
This is very weak.
Arnaud
================