Re: [tied] Re: PIE *kwokt

----- Original Message -----
From: <m_iacomi@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:18 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: PIE *kwokt
:
> >
> > 1) PIE *gW > b and PIE *kW > p when _not_ followed by /e/ or /i/
> > 2) PIE *gW > g and PIE *kW > k when followed by /e/ an /i/
>
> Then you should clearly point out that "some scholars" which
> support these "rules of derivation" (ref: "Some scholars belive
> that [...]" - message 19190 of cybalist) is just another way
> to say `Vinereanu` (whose "knowledge" of IE issues was already
> discussed on this list). Nobody else claimed this kind of rules

>
> Marius Iacomi

Everywhere is a beginning. Someone must see them first. The examples
given shows the rules work.
And that should be enough. About someone's "knowledge" of IE issues I
don't guess it is wise to make yourself an opinion in the particularly
situation when you did not get this opinion directly from him/her , but
his/her ideas have been presented to you by a dilettante as Alex for
instance. And Alex could present them wrong, couldn't he? You are aware
of Alex's inability to understand some rules, so you don't need to
wonder if he presented someone's rules in a wrong way. For you as
Romanian speaker should be interesting that these /e/ and /i/ are too
the very factors which influenced the evolution of Latin words in
Romanian later. And the parallelism of ideas should make you interested
what could be there.