From: Rick McCallister
Message: 55933
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
>
> ================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>