On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:41:12, "Glen Gordon" <
glengordon01@...>
wrote:
>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.
But why should they be suffixes???
And if these are suffixes at all, then they are of course *-nt and
*-ngw [*].
>Due to your version of the heteroclitic sound rule, you are in
>essence claiming that this *-t was ONLY in the nominoaccusative
Nope. I claimed the paradigms were (approximately):
I. II. III.
*póh2wr *yé:kWrt *h1ésh2rgW
*peh2wén-os *yekWént-os *h1sh2éngW-os
Regularized in different ways (usually in favour of I., except in
Greek (II.), but surviving in relicts such as Lat. <sanguis>, or the
I-I & Arm. nominatives in -rt)
[*] *-nt- needs no further introduction. It's interesting to consider
what happened to possible neuter stems ending *-nkW-, *-ng^-, or
*-nk^-. A possible case of *-r(g^)/*-ng^ is the comparison of Arm.
kol/r "branch" with Pol. gal/a,z' "id." (< **g(W)olr ~ **g(W)leng^-
?).