[tied] Re: again Slavic "dragU"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 18:28:58 +0000, Abdullah Konushevci
> <a_konushevci@...> wrote:
>
> >> We are aware of the liquid metathesis. It affects the
> >> _diphthongs_ /el/, /er/, /ol/ (or */al/), /or/ (or */ar/).
> >
> >[AK]
> >We have completly different view about diphthongs.
>
> In Balto-Slavic linguistics, Vl, Vr, Vm, Vn are considered
> diphthongs.

[AK]
OK. It's the matter of Balto-Slavic linguistics not of PIE in general.

>
> >[AK]
> >In previous messages, if my memory don't fail, you have claimed

that

> >PIE /*o:/ never (!) yields Slavic /a/.
>
> Then I suppose your memory is failing you.

[AK]
Yes, you claim that it must be /*o/, which not yields Slavic /a/.

>
> >> Of course PIE */o:/ gives Slavic /a/. The problem is that
> >> there is no */o:/ in *dargas (> Pol. drog-, Russ. dorog-,
> >> SSl. drag-).
> >
> >[AK]
> >For the first time I saw that someone reconstruct protoform

*dargas.

>
> It's *dargas at the PBS level. That's Common Slavic
> [ignoring N.Krivichian -e] *dorgU.

[AK]
But, according to Derksen, which I haven't now at hand, it must be
*do:rgU. You leave Pokorny's etymology in previous message. So,
Common Slavic root *dorgU is without any cognates in other languages.
Do you find this explanation reasonable? Why you can't accept the
same semantic field covered both <drug> and <drag> as in most IE
languages, because just I have said that.
For the reason that many so-called experts are playing ostrich's
game, as they play usually, with some exceptions, I think it is not
worth to continue with further feedbacks.

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

Konushevci