From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 47975
Date: 2007-03-19
>PIE
> --- 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
> hadstrong
> > no fundamental *a, do you have to reconstruct Hnah2s- in the
> > cases and the embarrassing monstrosity *Hnh2as- in the accusativelong-
> 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
> a: tooI
>
> 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
> found one you told me that is not applicable, but I cannot2
> understand : based on what?
> I really cannot understand your reserves in relation with Q-1 and Q-
> above...I need to put a third question, Only to really be more clear :
>
> Thanks for your feedback,
> Marius
>