--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
If no such necessity How you explain Latin Nom. sa:l with long-a:
versus Lat. Acc. salem with short-a
Versus Latin Nom. na:ris with long-a: with Lat. Acc. na:rem with long-
a: too
A model (Lubotsky) :
Nom. *seh2l
Acc. *sh2elm
Gen. *sh2los
Nom. *hneh2s
Acc. *hneh2sm < *hnh2esm
Gen. *hnh2sos
THE methathesis *HR/HV > *HR/VH (my point) will well explain all
these forms...
Sorry to ask you again, but I didn't understand well your points:
Question-1) What paradigm/model you have/use, here, in place ...in
order to explain all these Latin forms in a coherent way?
Question-2) What is wrong in the above model (despite the supposed
missing a)? I'm not able to see what is wrong.
I ensure you:
I'm ready to listen you too, at least in the same proportion, as
I 'have listen' Lubotsky in his papers. Please don't accuse me to
be 'the Lubotsky' fanatic fun'...
I have search (for some days) to find a Latin HRHV-cluster and when I
found one you told me that is not applicable, but I cannot
understand : based on what?
I really cannot understand your reserves in relation with Q-1 and Q-2
above...
Thanks for your feedback,
Marius