--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:27:00 +0000, alexandru_mg3
> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> >I.
> >> >Indo-European reconstruction: k^le:uH-
> >>
> >> Derksen doesn't mean that *k^le:uH- would have given
> >> *s'lo:u(?)-, which is impossible. He means that the PIE
> >> _root_ can be reconstructed as *k^le:uH- (which is
> >> doubtful). BS *s'lo:u(?)- would then be o-grade.
> >>
> >
> >I doubt. Dersken clearly indicates the derivations, even the
endings
> >are present whenever they are clear enough. Please check.
>
> I asked him this morning at Zagreb airport.
>
I'm not impressed on what Derksen has said this morning 'on the
Zagreb Airport'.
And I'm not impressed about 'the airport story' (because I can read
and you can read also) in fact everybody here can read what is
written 'at Leiden':
1.a "BS *s'lo:u(?)- would then be o-grade " -> 1. is not an o-
grade because this is the proposed Balto-Slavic common
recosntruction and not the PIE form there wasn't any s'.
1.b Is not a Blato-Slavic evolution of a supposed o-grade PIE
because there isn't any reconstructed PIE o-grade on taht site.
So would be ilogic to have a Blato-Slavic reconstructing rteflecting
a non-specified o-grade.
1.c also "*k^le:uH-" is not the PIE root from where we need to
derive an inexisting PIE o-grade in order to obtain a specified Balto-
Slavic o-grade etc... see other derivations there...
But Miguel, ...there is no need to hide in this way your initial
assumption *k'low-.
If it wasn't *k'low and you made a mistake, so what? What is the
drama here? Everybody can make a mistake...
If you still think that it was *k'low please put your arguments
here showing how you can derive Grk. kleos from PIE *k'low or as an
alternative that Grk. kleos is not a cognates...Also maybe you can
clarify too what is the real depalatisation rule in Balto-Slavic if
the Kortlandt's rule is false etc...
But please do not create such confusions.
If a third NEUTRAL person could check Leiden, I will thank to
him....in order to close this false interpretation.
The best argument is to compare 2 cases
we have the derivation of Lith love:
http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?
root=leiden&morpho=0&basename=\data\ie\baltic&first=1321
"love: [..] Proto-Indo-European reconstruction: k'le:uH-"
Please compare with :" smirdeti Proto-Indo-European reconstruction:
smrd-eh-1-tei "
http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?
root=leiden&morpho=0&basename=\data\ie\baltic&first=1221
smrd-eh-1-tei is only a PIE Root as Miguel tell us? I doubt.
> >II.
> >> That rule is surely wrong (see Derksen: kleg-/klek-,
> >> kleNc^ati, kleNtI, klik-, kljuc^I, and I stopped checking
> >> there).
> >>
> >
> >Could you indicate me Dersken's pages for these words.
> >I mean the url-s? I couldn't find them.
>
> Just type 'k' in the "Proto-Slavic", select "Match
> beginning", hit Enter, and browse through the k's.
I will check.
> > So (excluding myself from this equation) there are three
persons
> >that reject *klow : Derksen, Kortlandt and Sergei: all of
them "see"
> >an *e/e: in the PIE form and not an *o.
>
> No-one in his right mind sees an /e:/ there.
Dersken posted one on Leiden.
Best Regards,
Marius