Re: [tied] n/r (was: PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with')

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

> Patrick:
>
> Utterly untrue; and if you think so, demonstrate it with examples.
>
> Secondly *H (1/2/3) was probably a laryngeal fricative rather than a

dorsal

> one (your velar).
>
> And Hittite shows that /?/ should also reconstructed.

I thought there was no evidence as to whether Hittite retained /?/ or not.

> There is PIE *H
> (probably /h/) and *h though more in earlier stages. But that is a

no-no for

> Cybalist.

Largely because no suitable set of vowels could be found for the more
complicated roots containing laryngeals. Jens's comments on the
accent effects were the most telling counter-argument.

> ***
> Patrick:

> And what is Khowar?

A Dardic language - see
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=khw , but treat the
family tree as a non-cladistic classification.

Richard.