--- In cybalist@..., "Alexander Stolbov" <astolbov@...> wrote:
> Do I understand you right:
> to get problemless explanation of Slavic and Baltic (in this case
already
> Balto-Slavic) form of Dunaj we had to have as the PIE form not
*da:nu but
> *dau-n-:*dou-n- ?
Exactly. Any of *da(:)u-n-:*do(:)u-n-*dHa(:)u-n-:*dHo(:)u-n- would
fit (one can re-write it in laryngeals if he likes).
> And what? Could Indo-Iranian, Celtic and other attested and
recognized
> reflexes of this stem be developed from *dau-n-:*dou-n- ? And from
**daunu ?
Of what stem?
Please don't ask me on Iranian and especially Celtic. I'm waiting for
the experts like Piotr and Chris to say something on that.
I have a strong feeling we're arguing about something. About what,
I'd like to know. You state Slavic *dunajI/dunavU and Baltic *du(:)na
(:)j(u/a)- are not only PIE legacy, but also cognates of the form(s)
underlying Latin Da:nuuius etc? I state I can't come up with a
plausible scenario leading from something PIE to the forms attested.
If you can, tell us.
Sergei