Re: Dybo's law context

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapoviæ <mkapovic@...> wrote:

>
> On Ned, listopad 21, 2007 12:43 pm, alexandru_mg3 reèe:
> >
> > I want to ask you what is the real context of Dybo's law?
> >
> > The rule can be formulated:
> >
> > For Italic, Celtic and Germanic:
> >
> > V:/RVaccented > V
> >
> > or
> >
> > VH /RVaccented > V
> >
> > V - vowel ; R - Resonant {m,n,l,r,w,y} H-laryngeal
> >
> > but
> > Latin fu:mus < *dHuh2-mó- is still with u:
> > Latin pu:rus < *puh2-ró- is still with u:
> >
> > and seems that there are also samples of short vowels from long

vowels

> > follows by a non-resonant
>
> Just a side-note, Dybo actually does not operate with shortening in
> pretonic syllables since he believes in the PIE tones, not in PIE
> Vedic-type free stress. Thus, what he claims is that *u: and *i:

(i.e. *uH

> and *iH) are shortened in Italic, Celtic and Germanic in the roots

which

> are (-) in Balto-Slavic (i.e. mobile accentual paradigm).
>
> Mate
>

Thanks, Mate.

Honestly I'm more confused now, than I previously was (of course, not
due to you, but due to what you tell me about Dybo)

If I understood correctly, you tell me that Dybo sustains that PIE
was a tone language?

If so, what are his arguments?

Thanks again for your answer,
Marius