> Miguel wrote:
>When Kortlandt says *e:uh1, he means *e:uh1, certainly not
>*eh1u. The whole article *is* about long (non-laryngeal)
>vowels in Balto-Slavic, for Christ's sake.
Miguel, you present now the situation as from the beginning you
have proposed the right derivation and you knew all the additional
works on this topic...
Viewing this, I'm obliged to remember you again what the situation
is different: you have proposed *k'low- that is a Wrong Derivation
here
and I and not you, have posted the correct derivation (or at
least one closer to the correct one, see Sergei remarks too).
So first at all, let's be clear on this: you have posted a Wrong
Derivation.
If you don't remember well you initial posting, I can repost your
initial message (that is far away from the current discussion).
Anyway I will not insist further...if you want to make a "hocus-
pocus" here only to hide your initial proposal that was
*k'low....it's your choice...I will not insist...I closed this topic
here.
Kortlandt
"In the case of Lith. Slove: 'glory', OCS. slava, which cannot be
separated from Latin clue:re 'be mentioned', I think that we have
to start from a form *k'le:uH1, with analogical lengthened grade as
in Gothic qe:ns 'wife', PIE. *gwenH2, or Gr. 'e:par 'liver', PIE.
*iekwr. "
>When Kortlandt says *e:uh1, he means *e:uh1, certainly not
>*eh1u.
Kortland talk about an initial *euh1, Miguel, not about *e:uh1 and
then he proposed an "analogical lengthened grade" that generated
*e:uh1. Please see above the examples that he gives.
Next, I don't see any reason not to can suppose in place of
an "analogical lengthened grade" a "laryngeal metathesis" here (of
course Kortlandt didn't talk about this, but the laryngeal is
there...):
*euh1 > *eh1u > *e:u
If you see one reason not to can suppose here a "laryngeal
metathesis"...please use arguments against this.
Next this h1 is based on Latin clue:re, Miguel, and I can question
this link with the Balto-Slavic form : if really was h1 in Balto-
Slavic or not. I did this because I simple saw that "supposing" a h2
and a "laryngeal metathesis" we will have a "clean" derivation
*euh2 > *eh2u > *a:u
(and I added, that this is 'a pure supposition' because I need to
find facts in order to see if this supposition can be sustained or
not)
So when you `talk' about "ga-ga-land" please be more carefull
because the current 'topic' has indicated a 'ga-ga-land on your
side' : you didn't know all the details about the discussed
subject ...
Now again with this 'ga-ga-land', we have a `nice' remark on your
side => making me to ask myself if you really know the details
regarding the conditions when the laryngeal metathesis could happened
(and please allow me to suppose this viewing also that in the current
discussed case you didn't know in advance about Kortlandt's
derivation...(I need also to remember you in this context, your
previous 'remark' regarding the person that will propose an "e:" for
slava (Kortlandt in this case, even you have supposed that it was me
(and next Dersken too
despite "Zagreb Airport story")) ...
If I remember well, you have said: "he is not in his right minds"
At the end I'm not sure for who your remark could be applied ...
Best Regards,
Marius