Re: [tied] Re: Early PAlb Depalatisations of k', g' > k, g

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:04:06 +0000, alexandru_mg3
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>--- 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'.

It's still o-grade.

> 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.

Who cares? The root *k^leu(s)- has o-grade, e-grade and
zero-grade, like most any root, also in Balto-Slavic
(kláusti < *k^leus-, klausýti < *klous-, Latv. klusêt <
*klus-).

PIE *e: simply does not yield *o: in Balto-Slavic.

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