From: etherman23
Message: 39864
Date: 2005-09-02
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:50:41 +0000, etherman23I was mistaken, it's H3ebhi.
> <etherman23@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> Reconstructable based on what?