Re: [tied] az+

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:29 AM
Subject: RE: [tied] az+


> > What's the argument against Balto-Slavo-Indo-Iranian
> > *h1eg^H(om), thus avoiding Winter's law, with Slavic
> > exceptionally retaining the archaic form *h1eg[^](om)?
> >
>
> How can one speak of Balto-_Slavo_-Indo-Iranian *h1eg^H(om) if there are
> no traces of it Slavic? ;)
>
I meant (Balto-Slavo)-(Indo-Iranian), but our punctuation doesn't
really allow written bracketing. Following
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/files/phylogeny.png , I could
have said 'Core Satem', but I'm not sure I'd have been understood. I
was suggesting an archaicism as an ancient dialect feature.

Richard.