From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 40886
Date: 2005-09-30
----- Original Message -----
From: "glen gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Ie. *laywos/leh2iwos (was: ka and k^a)
> Piotr:
> > One should be careful with adverbs like "ever".
> > The colouring by the *K series was inconsistent.
> > We have well-attested roots like *s)ker-, *sek-
> > or *legH-, which don't show any a-colouring.
>
> Yes, I don't doubt that they are reconstructed but
> I'm still skeptical as to whether they are
> reconstructed properly. Afterall, if long vowels
> are not prone to colouring, should we not ask
> ourselves whether these roots are in fact long-grade?
> Hence: *sqe:r-, *se:q- and *le:GH-.
>
> What shows conclusively that we are dealing with
> short *e in these roots?
***
Patrick:
The related derivatives show it conclusively.
***
>
> > It may have been a capricious, incomplete sound
> > change, like the lowering of Early Modern
> > English /u/, which took place in <butter> but not
> > in <butcher>.
>
> Granted, but wouldn't that be the less economical
> solution in comparison to a consistent rule? Yes,
> I'm still stubborn because I'm not convinced that
> those *e's should be there yet :(
>
>
> = gLeN
***
Patrick:
If daughter languages have <e>, one wonders what on Earth could convince?
***