From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 7053
Date: 2001-04-10
>[ego:]I fail to see what point you're trying to make. I have no opinion on
>this is why the inclusion of the 1ps *-o: element in our analysis is
>absolutely paramount.
>If Latin, Germanic, Tocharian, Celtic, Balto-Slavic, Greek and Indo-IranianNot to mention the impact of Kartvelian on Old Prussian...
>all show *s(w)ek^s, then I hardly see why Armenian must be explained at the
>IE level. It was no doubt affected by Kartvelian languages afterall.
>Your views on IE as well as Semitic are clearly demented. IE *-k^s comesThat's an alternative hypothesis I've been entertaining (after writing
>from the consonant cluster in the Semitic word for six, possibly *-dT- or
>*-tT-.
>You fail to convincely explain a contradictive development of *us > *yus asIn PIE, *yus would have been reduced to *ys-mé (*ismé), in clear
>anything other than a "euphonic" prefix *y- rather than conforming to the
>more apparent, less involved explanation. The accusative forms are quite
>obviously zeroed, eroded forms in contrast to the fuller nominative (*ns
>"us" < *mes). Thus *yus must indeed be original with an eroded *us for
>oblique cases, in firm opposition to your pretend soundlaw.