Re: Proper methodology (was: RE: [tied] Re: Mother of all IE langua

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:17:06 +0100 (MET), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
<jer@...> wrote:

>
>
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>
>[Against Glen who says Hitt. sume:s "couldn't be from **swei as Miguel
>invents":]
>
>> Of course it can.  See H. Craig Melchert "Anatolian Historical
>> Phonology",
>> p. 58, on Sievers-Lindeman in Anatolian, I quote:
>>
>> *swé:s "you"(pl.) > *suwé:s > Hitt. sume:s.
>
>Well, Melchert wrote this, but why would we believe it is true? There are
>several avenues from *yú:s, *usmé, *wos to usme:s, usma:s, -smas and so
>hardly any need to posit IE protoforms with *sw-.

I have mentioned:

Celtic *swi: 2pl.
Greek spho: 2du.
Hitt. sume:s 2pl.
Alb u < *swey- (?) 2pl.
Avest. x^sma 2pl.


What more evidence do you want?

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