alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> If the PAlb was *wad-a < PIE *vad-o(s) ...you are right, of course.
> But if the PAlb was *wa-da-wa ...
Ockham's Razor should prevent you from stuffing a reconstruction with
ad-hoc extra syllables whose existence cannot be proved and whose only
purpose is to suit your preconceived ideas (1. <va> is a native word, 2.
loss of intervocalic voiced stops happened only in polysyllabic words).
On grounds of economy, Lat. vadum easily wins, and has the advantage of
being not only a plausible source of /va:/ but also an actually attested
word (as opposed to a God-know's-what like *wadawa-)
> P.S. I remembered also the times when you have derived besë from
> *benc^a and the PIE *bindh- and you refused to take into account my
> argument <that the semantism 'doesn't fit'>...
Doesn't it (BTW, I derived it from PIE *bHendH-)? A bond and loyalty are
unrelated concepts? At least I'm in good company, since the connection
has been accepted by many linguists, including Pokorny and Hamp. Show me
a good alternative solution if you can.
Piotr