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

On Sub, rujan 24, 2005 10:28 pm, Miguel Carrasquer reče:

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:56:48 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
> <s.tarasovas@...> wrote:
>
>>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapović <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?
>
> Yes, it rules out *aiH. Cf. *daiHwé:r, Slav. dę"verI, Latv.
> die~veris, with Hirt's law (see Illich-Svitych p. 154,
> Rasmussen "On Hirt's law", 1).

Wouldn't be so sure about Slav. dě´´verI with an acute. Derivatives
(which rarely if ever go secondary) point to the circumflex - dě^verI.

Mate