--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-09-07 03:17, stlatos wrote:
>
> > Is it really likely that a supposed & would > u instead of > a in
> > Germanic?
>
> Yes, as in *Guman-. The development of Lindeman's epenthetic segment
> resembles the ordinary development of syllabic consonants in all
> branches and is indistinguishable from that of *CR.HV-.
So, you believe that PIE & > o in Latin (homo:); what about your
previous description of Cr,H- > Car-, or supposed *t&thlo+ > tabula?
What are the changes and order of H,>a in comparison to this?
It is at the beginning of words in Gmc. that H, > a, never > u as in
some positions. Why bul- if from *bh&l-? Why 0>& in such a common
initial cluster and not in other words (or for equally common clusters
of the same type)?
I've already given reasons why *guman- < *gdhm,mYon+ (in part, words
for people ending in -mon- exist, adding it to *gdhom+ would produce
this, Celtic *dunyon+, etc.)
You don't have to answer any part of my questioning you don't feel
like, but I'd like your explanation of -l- vs -ll- in a wide variety
of Greek words so I can give some more detailed argument if you have
additional evidence.