Re: [tied] az+

If the aspirated from is an innovation, then wherever it originated the
speech would have had both forms. I was thinking in terms of diffusion
rather than branching, so in my idea the dialect(s) that gave rise to Slavic
need never have had the aspirated form.

The argument above would fail if *g^H in *h1eg^H- 'I' were an evolution of
say, a cluster *g^ + laryngeal and thus partially, at least, parallel to the
development of *dHug(H)&ter 'daughter'. The effect could also be achieved
if the pre-Slavic dialect lost laryngeals in such clusters, prior to the
merger g^ + h > g^H elsewhere and the subsequent application of Winter's
law.

Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] az+


> If the aspirated form was BSl.-IIr. (Core Satem), it was also pre-
> Slavic. And if the unaspirated form was Slavic, it surely was also
> pre-Slavic and Bsl.-IIr. (presuming there is such a thing). It
> simply amounts to saying that BSl.(-IIr.) had not made up its mind
> but had both forms. That's explaining things by lack of explanation.
>
> Jens
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
> wrote:
> > 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)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>