Re: [tied] *es- or *h1es- ?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, glen gordon <glengordon01@...> wrote:

>
> Torsten:
> > If after the laryngeal turned vowel the paradigm
> > included stems *edont- and *edent- it's not
> > surprising if a hypercorrect stem like *odont-
> > should appear.
>
> Perhaps not, but what _is_ surprising is that you
> persist with a train of thought that is far more
> effortful to justify than the standard explanation.

Erh, why?

>
> There are no benefits to what you're saying, only
> weaknesses.

And they are?

>Since other languages do behave in the
> manner IE is theorized to,

By ... ?

>there wasn't a problem
> to begin? So why do you create one out of thin air?

I thought I created a solution.


Torsten