[tied] Re: Bader's article on *-os(y)o

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Richard:
> > The problem is that there isn't a great deal of evidence at _my_
> > disposal. The present stem of all the Greek athematic verbs I

can

> > think of ends in a vowel (not -l/n/r) and I don't understand the

2s

> > imperfect of Greek eîmi 'go'.
>
> But wasn't there previous talk about Latin /fers/ showing that it
> was Latin-unique? I thought the proper non-indicative 2ps of *bHer-
> is *bHer-e-s. The 2ps of *ei- would be *eisi or nonindicative *eis,
> no?
>
>
> Richard:
> > You are libelling me again. Logic is not invalid because the
> > premiss is false; false premisses simply result in unproven
> > conclusions.
>
> Alright, what did I miss?

You said the logic was completely wrong.

> As for Brugmann's Law, this is something _post-IE_ which has

nothing to

> do with my theory necessarily. Your issue here is with IE itself,

not

> my pre-IE which is meant to account for IE as it stands. It would

be

> intriguing if the thematic vowels turned out to show up in IE as
> distinct from *e and *o though.

I misremembered the exception to Brugmann's law that shows two types
of PIE *o. Miguel refers to it in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/14135 .

1st person dual and plural thematic in Sanskrit shows my original
statement to be wrong - the thematic vowel is long for these forms.

> > Nostratic *t ~*s > PIE **s ~**z in PIE final position. (I

presume

> > you think I meant Nostratic **s ~**z).
>
> All I see is that you're comparing languages that are so far

distant

> to each other that there's no point mentioning it when it's beyond
> your full understanding. You assert this oscillation but have no
> evidence?

I mean contrast, not oscillation. And I should have said pre-
diffusion PIE.


Richard.