From: Miguel Carrasquer
>There's a difference between failing to see my point (which I don'tI understand what you say. I just don't think you are correct.
>have a problem with) and repeatedly either failing to understand what
>I've just said
>or using complete irrelevancies like his **pk^wos basedNo. Read what I said.
>solely on Armenian
>However, that being so, there were instances where the loss ofSo what are the rules?
>unstressed vowels was resisted
>. The paradigmatic strengthening rule isThere is no reason in your theory why this should not have given
>the exception to the loss of unstressed vowels in Mid IE. Therefore, *e
>in *pedos "of the foot" should be seen as the result of preservation of
>the Mid IE unstressed schwa (written below as *e).
> MIE *pet: > *pat: > *pad-s& > PIE *po:ts [nom]
> MIE *pet:ase > *p&t:as > *pedas > PIE *pedos [gen]
> in contrast to lack of strengthening in:
> MIE *kewane > *kwan > *kwan-s& > PIE *kwo:ns [nom]
> MIE *kewenase > *kunas > *kunas > PIE *kunos [gen]
>There was no threat in the latter paradigm of the root becoming
>asyllabic anywhere in the paradigm because the unstressed portion of
>the weak cases, MIE *kewen-, naturally becomes syllabic *kun-. However,
>in the paradigm of *pod-, the unstressed MIE weak case root *pet:- would
>have normally become asyllabic **pd-. Since this would cause obscurity,
>strengthening occured and the schwa was preserved, becoming *e in Late
>The same law operates on countless other stems where asyllabification
>of the root in weak cases would have normally occured, such as the
>paradigm of *wodr "water" (gen *wedn-os)
>or that of *peku "herd" (gen *pekeu-s).The genitive of *pek^u is not **pek^eus! *pek^u belongs in