Re: Ie. *laywos/leh2iwos (was: ka and k^a)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapoviæ <mkapovic@...> wrote:

> > Less realistic than *laiwos, given the circumflex intonation,

which

> > indicates a laryngeal-less root. Derksen posits *lh2aiwo-. Brave

boys,

> > laryngealising to the last ;-).
>
> Circumflex intonation where? The word itself is not attested in

Baltic and

> the Slavic circumflex is irrelevant since we would expect it there

anyway

> (Greek laiós - acute would disappeare via Meillet's Law in Slavic

the word

> being mobile).

But what about Hirt's law? Wouldn't Slavic a.p. c point to the
absence of a laryngeal at least on the flanks of *i? That's probably
why Derksen posits *lh2aiwo-: it would nicely account both for the
Lithuanian acute (if one subscribes to Kortland's view that (C)HV
yields acute in Baltic and Slavic) and the Slavic a.p. c.

Sergei