Re: [tied] Re: PIE voiceless aspirates

----- Original Message -----
From: "glen gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE voiceless aspirates


> Patrick:
> > So far as I can see, there could be no _second_
> > palatalization because, in Old Indian, all *V had
> > become <a>, which could not palatalize.
>
> Since *woidos becomes /veda/ (the thing that you're
> currently lacking) this absolute assertion is
> obviously not correct.

***
Patrick:

eg^o woida

PIE *ei > OI e:
PIE *ai > OI e:
PIE *oi > OI e:

So what was the point again?

By the way, what form is *woidos? third imperfect?

***

>
> > Fine. PIE *k^he becames <S> in Old Indian.
>
> Only in your model, as David has said. And that
> does make it irrelevant.
>
>
> = gLeN

***
Patrick:

1. Buy yourself an IE dictionary.

2. Look in it.

***