From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 36141
Date: 2005-02-04
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:Yes, I meant short /e/. What did you mean?
>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:27:23 +0000, whetex_lewx
>> <whetex_lewx@...> wrote:
>>
>> >Why we:k- isn't suggested? weik- makes some mess, it would be
>> >reflected as vaik-, veik-, vy~k- or viek- in Lith. and dialects...
>> >PIE e: is proper for long open Lith. and Lv. vak-
>>
>> PIE */e/. *e: would have given Lith. long <e.>. The
>> development *vèkaras > *và karas > va~karas is regular.
>
>So what's wrong? I gues you had short e in your mind, because grave
>is short