Re: [tied] *pYerkW+

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> On 2007-05-19 07:24, Sean Whalen wrote:

> > If there had been a PIE rule as such than there
> > would be no change in 'river' or 'lynx' as:
> >
> > daxnus . daxnwos . luugYsnus . luugYsnwos
> > daxnus . daxwwos . luugYsnus . luugYswwos
> > daxnus . daxuwos . luugYsnus . luugYsuwos
> >
> > so the forms with and without n wouldn't exist (as
> > I've written about before).
>
> I don't think these reconstructions are sufficiently
> supported by the
> evidence, so I'm not convinced of their validity in
> the first place.

How about * t(e)rsnu+s t(e)rsuw+ 'dry (so of people
= thirsty)' > Goth. þaursus; Khowar thrus.nù;
metathesis nu > mi in Arm. & Celtic so OIr tír /
tírim; > verb in Arm. t'ars^amim 'wither'.






____________________________________________________________________________________Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow