Re: [tied] Re: All of creation in Six and Seven

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:31:31 +0000, Glen Gordon <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>>>Yet another obvious factor is that IE evidently shows no vowel
>>>between *p and *t, let alone accent. To propose Pre-IE *-pVt- is
>>>baseless (not based on any adequate and well proven Pre-IE rule)
>>
>>Zero grade?
>
>No, no, Miguel. I know what you're saying. I understand the premise of
>your idea. We're supposed to ASSUME that *-pVt- was reduced to *-pt-

Actually *-bVt- > *-pt-

>in Late IE. However, it's not that you don't have a Pre-IE rule behind it,
>but rather that you don't have any ADEQUATE and WELL PROVEN
>Pre-IE rule, at least in the context of *septm. You don't explain why
>this MUST be so over the simpler theory that I propose. I will not just
>assume that there was some vowel between *-pVt- because there is
>nothing to show this. The vowel just simply isn't observed. This is just
>idle assumption.

Nonsense: the vowel is observed allright in the source language.

>>Sure, the accent was initial in pre-PIE.
>
>No it wasn't. Accent alternation in paradigms must precede accent
>regularization.

I meant in **séptm. (later *septm.')


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