From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 41951
Date: 2005-11-09
----- Original Message -----
From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:35 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: PIE voiceless aspirates
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "glen gordon" <glengordon01@...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > IE *woidos is mentioned here:
> > > http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/roots/zzw01100.html
> > >
> > > Why don't _you_ LOOK in it.
> >
> > *weido-s is Old Indian ve:da-H; you left out the visarga.
> >
> > Why did you do that?
>
> He didn't leave out the visarga. He gave a P.I.E. form,
> which of course could have no visarga.
>
> The visarga at the end of 'veda-' comes from P.I.E. *s,
> which of course Glen included at the end of his 'woidos'.
>
> David
***
Patrick:
I copied what Glen wrote at 11:44 AM 11/8/2005:
Since *woidos becomes /veda/ (the thing that you're
> > currently lacking) this absolute assertion is
> > obviously not correct.
Is "/veda/" a PIE form that needs no visarga? I think, but perhaps something
in the files section will force me to change my mind, that Glen meant to
write an Old Indian form. Did you even see this posting? or care to look?
I am well aware whence visarga comes.
How about at least reading the relevant postings before you jump in to
defend Glen? with inaccurate information.
***