fournet.arnaud wrote:
> Does it have a s- in the first place ? One just can explain #r- with
> r- ? no need to presuppose sr-
The *sr- in *sreu- is not "presupposed" but securely reconstructed on
the basis of Skt. srávati, srutá, Germanic *stroumo-, Slavic *strumy,
Lith. srau~jas, OIr. sruaim, sruth, etc.
And, yes, rivers are often said to "run" in all languages I know.
Piotr
==============
And what about
Celtic row-dh-anos > Rhone ?
No need for this #sr- inception.
Rava
I'am waiting for your alternative explanation.
Tchadic :
ruwa "water".
Chinese
liu2 "to flow"
We don't need to pre-suppose
*sr- is the original form.
Your reasoning is completely circular.
Are you aware of that circularity ?
You are *damn* wrong
with your orthodox *sr- thing.
It does not exist.
Arnaud
=================