From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 39856
Date: 2005-09-02
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:Reconstructable based on what?
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:36:35 +0000, etherman23
>> <etherman23@...> wrote:
>>
>> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 05:48:47 +0000, etherman23
>> >> <etherman23@...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, glen gordon <glengordon01@...>
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Miguel mentions in previous postings a plural in
>> >> >> > -abh- and that this lautgesÃĪtzlich becomes -om.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> His basis for a true plural marker in *bH is weak.
>> >> >
>> >> >I agree
>> >>
>> >> What's weak about it?
>> >
>> >It's weak because *bhi is obviously a particle that became an
>> >inflection in some languages.
>>
>> That isn't obvious at all. It it were a postposition, like
>> is usually claimed, it would behave like a postposition,
>> which it doesn't.
>
>Don't you find it just a little bit too coincidental that there's a
>reconstructable particle *H2ebhi?