Miguel:
>So what about *kwete-sor- (*kweto-sr-)?
Is this an acceptable reconstruction? Is it appropriate to
reconstruct a Proto-IndoEuropean root based on a Celtic-Anatolian
isogloss?
The problem with reconstructing *-sor- also involves the fact that
IndoEuropean (that is, IndoAnatolian) probably had two genders
(animate/inanimate) rather than the later three(masculine/feminine/neuter)
and so we have to wonder why *kWetwores
is so special to have adopted a special feminine suffix within the
sphere of an animate-inanimate language.
I think this fact underlines the probability that your *kWetesor
is not to be reconstructed for IndoEuropean proper and that it
derives from a postIE misanalysis of *kWetwor- as **kWet- + *-wr.
This faulty analysis would then lead to the strange ending *-sor
being used for the feminine, replacing *-wor-, a suffix that
was never used here in the first place.
Don't you agree?
-------------------------------------------------
Glen Gordon
Webdeveloper
home:
http://glen_gordon.tripod.com
email:
glengordon01@...
ph: (604)904.0320
-------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp