Re: [tied] Re: *kW- "?"

On Sub, rujan 24, 2005 2:03 am, glen gordon reče:

> Mate:
>> Not really the same. I gather by preservation of
>> laryngeals you mean direct, consonantal, reflexes
>> of it. We have no direct reflex of the "uvular"
>> [...]
>
> Yes, and we don't have direct reflexes of *h3
> distinct from *h2. Not even in Anatolian.

And what would *direct reflexes* be according to you? Maybe it means
something different in Canada...

>> The markedness could be explained in a different
>> fashion (cf. for instance the classic Illich-
>> Svitychian explanation)
>
> Illich-Svitych died a half-a-century ago. You're
> desperate to argue fruitlessly, I see. That you would
> openly side with less-than-modern linguistics floors
> me. It's like insisting that alchemy works.

How classical of you... Missed the point completely...

>> However, there are also direct traces - _h_ in
>> Anatolian from *h2 and probably *h3,
>
> "Probably"? Do you not know the proper reflex of *h3
> in Anatolian? Perhaps you should buy some new books
> written after the 70s.

"Probably" means that not all linguists believe that *h3 yields *h- in
Anatolian and that it cannot be strictly proven in a sense that every
*h3e- could be *h2o- really. Anybody dealing with IE linguistics should no
this. Except maybe Indo-Tyrrhenian amateurs such as yourself.
You're just being an arrogant ignorant as usual. Quasi-snappy remark
backed with no arguments at all.

Mate