Re: [tied] PIE *HRHV > Pre-Latin HRVH > Latin RV: (*h1rh1-om-eh2 >

On 2007-03-19 10:35, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

>
> Well the Lithuanian forms point to a laryngeal:
> -I'm in a more solid ground that you here...

What the Baltic forms point to beyond reasonable doubt is a long *a: in
the root. Only if you dogmatically believe (with Lubotsky) that PIE had
no fundamental *a, do you have to reconstruct Hnah2s- in the strong
cases and the embarrassing monstrosity *Hnh2as- in the accusative sg.;
otherwise there is no such necessity. I side with those who find the
evidence for PIE *a (of non-laryngeal origin) overwhelming, pace
Lubotsky. Quite a number of linguists are happy with the reconstruction
*(H)na:s-/(H)nas-.

>> Even accepting the above paradigm of the 'nose' word for the sake
> of the
>> argument, it will get you this kind of variation only in a
> consonantal stem!
>> Piotr
>>
>
> Based On?

On the evidence that we have. Where are all those thematic stems with
HV/VH alternations?

> Why only in a consonantal stem?
>
> The cluster HRHV- is big enough not to depend on the final context

The greastest obstacle, as far as I'm concerned, is that I think that
even in the root-noun system the paradigm proposed by Kortlandt and
supported by Lubotsky is plainly wrong.

Piotr