Re: [tied] IE Roots

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:

> > There is nothing recent really comparable to Pokorny
>
> There is S E Mann's "An Indo-European Dictionary". It suffers from
> the lack of an index, and is not as comprehensive as Pokorny, but
> makes much better use of Albanian and Armenian. And it's in
> English! Like Pokorny it fails to recognise laryngeals, but it can
> at times give an insight lacking in Pokorny.

Not entirely true. Pokorny does have a small number of roots with h.
However, it's probably best that he doesn't use laryngeals more.
Linguists are still unsure how many laryngeals there were. IMO, three
seems untenable given the number of Anatolian words that should have
laryngeals but show no signs of them. If the laryngeal theory has any
merit there needs to be at least 4. I personally reject the theory,
but would posit one in accordance with the direct evidence of
Armenian and Anatolian (which don't always agree with each other).