Miguel floats in the clouds:
>Nope. I claimed the paradigms were (approximately):
>
>I. II. III.
>*p�h2wr *y�:kWrt *h1�sh2rgW
>*peh2w�n-os *yekW�nt-os *h1sh2�ngW-os
1) Don't mention the *-(n)gW rubbish again until you're prepared
to justify each and every supposed component and its
usage in Latin /sanguis/.
Without the above, we may only seriously discuss I and II.
2) It is understood that IE *t becomes Armenian /h/ or NULL...
that is, except in final position (or so we must presume
for the purposes of your blind theorizing) where we apparently
find /-d/ as in /leard/ < *yekWrt.
If this is truely so, its paradigm should reflect a lack of
-d- in oblique cases. If it does not, it has clearly been
altered (since we should find /h/ or null instead) and
therefore it cannot be relied upon in reconstructing the
original paradigm. This would thereby leave only the
conflicting paradigms between Greek and Sanskrit as "evidence"
of your fantasy paradigm.
Still, in the end, logic would dictate that, if *yekWrt ever
existed, it occured only in the nominoaccusative case and, then,
*-t would most definitely be a suffix, similar in behaviour to
the nominative *-s which was tacked on late in IndoEuropean's
evolution.
Again, please don't mention /sanguis/ or **-gW again until you
have FULLY justified it morphologically, semantically and
demonstrated other labiovelar suffixes. Otherwise, let's stick to
the less flimsy *-rt/*-nt- thing of yours.
- love gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp