Re: [tied] az+

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:51:15 +0100, Richard Wordingham
<richard@...> wrote:

>
>----- 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.

Given that Iranian doesn't distinguish *g^ from *g^H, it might be a case of
Indo-Baltic vs. Slavo-Iranian :-)

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...