Jens:
> Since I cannot accept simple short /ó/ as the direct manifestation
> of the vowel of which /é/ is the reduced form, I need to find a way
> to get it to be a special form of the /é:/ which some stems
> (like 'liver') present: I can do that in the collective:
Hm, hence the denial of a fundamental pattern in IE. This is a major
problem for your theory. The alternation of *wodr/*wednos is
transparently attested in Hittite /wadar/ & /widenas/. So /widar/ is
nothing but *wedó:rx with *e as the predictable unaccented alternative
to accented *o. Latin shows genitive /pedis/ for a root clearly
otherwise in *o, as in /podium/. We find in Greek accusative /pod-a/
to be compared with /pedon/ "ground". Even Hittite /sak-/ "to know"
with its alternate form /sek-/, whether from "intensive reduplicatives"
or not, shows the same irrefutable pattern.
So how anyone can deny the *ó/*e pattern sensibly is beyond me. It's
an example of what you accuse me of doing: reinventing IE.
= gLeN