Edgard:
> Anyway, I'm almost convinced that there were
> laryngeals, or something else in their place. It's
> just doxa, opinion, far away from epistéme, true
> knowledge...
Theory can't possibly be expected to ever qualify
as "true knowledge" in the sense you use. Does that
disqualify theory? No, of course not.
In the absence of absolute knowledge, there is still
relative knowledge. That's as good as we will ever
do but is far better than willy-nilly, mind you.
So *h1 in *h1es- is far more likely and less
contrived than anything else so far that has to
resort to random choices of analogy instead of a
_regular_ pattern.
Linguistics is not an art form no matter how much
laypersons try.
Edgard on Piotr's site:
> For instance, the verb *doh3?- 'to give'.
Actually, speaking of which, Piotr... Is there
any particular reason to think that it is *-o-
instead of *-e- in the aorist? Of course the rounding
effects of *h3 make it hard to tell here. You may
have explained this before but I've forgotten.
= gLeN
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/