To assert a *d-prefix for PIE, the minimum requirement would be to show the existence of other *C-prefixes. It is hardly possible that PIE had this category of modification for just one morpheme.
Aside from typological considerations, the list presented displays an appalling lack of consistency:
1) Latin arbor shows an initial PIE *(H)a(:)-; *deru- shows no trace of this phoneme;
2) <arse> is English; the PIE form is *(H)e(:)rs-; Latin <dorsum>, 'back', is probably a derivative of *der-, 'flay', + -*s; cf. Latvian dir^sa, 'backside'. *der-s- shows no trace of the initial phoneme (*H) we would expect from a derivation from *(H)e(:)rs-.
3) There is no PIE *eigh- that I can find. Furthermore, it is *deigh^- NOT *deigh-.
4) There is no PIE *dneph- that I can find.
Pokorny adequately explained *(H)a(:)k^-ru-, a derivation from *(H)a(:)k^-ro- + -*w, as 'sharp/bitter (ones)'. His suggestion that *da(:)k^(-ru-) is a dissimilation from *dra(:)k^(-ro-w-) has great merit; and allows us to possibly connect it with *derk^-, 'see', itself derived from *der-, 'see/glance', which is a specialized usage of *der- (in the from *dra:-), 'tremble'. The idea seems to be that a 'blink' of the eyelids is equated with a 'twitch' of the body; and further combined with *-k^-, which, I believe, adds the idea of 'back and forth movement (laterally)'. Thus, *dra(:)k^- means something like 'sneak a peek at'. -*ro adds the idea of intensity, so we have something like 'very sneaky'; -*w quantifies it, so 'instances of sneakiness'. This relates specifically to the furtive blinks and glances that often accompany crying. The association with 'tears' is fairly straightforward. I know of no better way to account for the -*a(:)- of *da(:)k^-ru-.
The speculation that PS *yaw-m- provides a *yeu- base for the addition of the, by now infamous, *d-prefix is false because the basis of *dyeu- is *dei-. The possible Nostratic connection of *yaw-m- is rather with PIE *yeu-, 'young'; so *yaw-m- is better 'morning' than 'day' per se.
As for Jupiter being from *yeu- rather than *dyeu-, the Old Latin form is attested as Diovis; note that Greek also treats this combination differently (Zeus).
Summary conclusion: the ramblings of a mind which considers unorthodox methods as a badge of honor - the linguistic rebel without a cause.
Patrick
----- Original Message -----
From: fournet.arnaud<mailto:fournet.arnaud@...>
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] IS PIE * DERU EXCLUSIVELY INDO-EUROPEAN ?
There is no *d- prefix in PIE.
Patrick
==============
(tsalam? t?ob)
What about :
dakru = akru
arbor = doru
arse = dorsum
eigh = deigh (to stick, to sting)
nebh = dneph (cloud)
etc
And there are a mountain of examples
when it comes to comparing PIE with other languages.
Like word "day" :
d-yew "day"
Semitic *yaw-m "day" "to-day"
As a matter of fact, Ju-piter has not #d-
when dies has !!
Orthodox PIE has **failed** to theorize
a #d- prefix.
But PIE had it.
No doubt.
Arnaud