Miguel, I'm not sure if you understand the full scope of
what you're claiming. The problems you bring up basically
involve two things: a suffix *-t and a suffix **-gW.
The latter suffix does not exist and you fail time and time
again to explain the use or demonstrate the attestation of this
suffix. Latin /sanguis/ will never be "proof" of **-gW until you
can *FULLY* explain *EACH AND EVERY* component of this word and
why it is the way it is. If you can't, don't mention /sanguis/
again, because it so far signifies nothing at all, leaving
a lonely Sanskrit /asrk/ as your flimsy foundation. Throw
**-gW away. It's an irrational pet theory of yours.
In re of *-t, there is better support, granted. However, the
question that needs to be asked is whether this truely represents
the Proto-IE stage, or some postIE isogloss that concerns Greek,
Armenian and IndoAryan. I may be a little stupid, but I seem to
recall that these dialects were once side-by-side and share many
innovations that do not exist in the rest of IE.
Due to your version of the heteroclitic sound rule, you are in
essence claiming that this *-t was ONLY in the nominoaccusative
(If you're confused, please think about it). Therefore, the
Greek paradigm has clearly been altered. A later spread of the
*-t into the oblique cases, perhaps? So, Sanskrit should show
the original state of affairs, with the *-n- (sans *-t-) in the
oblique cases and *-rt in the nominoaccusative case, yes?
So, I suppose, as it now stands, having accepted the bizarre but
legit Armenian /leard/ as further evidence, the best you can
say is that there was an isogloss of *yekWr-t in the Hellenic,
Armenian and IndoAryan dialect areas...
And... still *yekWrt doesn't appear to belong to IndoEuropean
itself. (Further evidence is provided by the penultimate accent
rule which further denies the antiquity of this *-t...)
- love gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp