From: Rick McCallister
Message: 52358
Date: 2008-02-05
> On 2008-02-05 13:22, fournet.arnaud wrote:____________________________________________________________________________________
>
> > There's nothing particularly "dialectal" about
> *jew(h1)o- .
> > ========== Do you have a western language reflex ?
>
> It has reflexes in Hittite, Greek, Indo-Iranian and
> Balto-Slavic -- a
> set of languages which is neither a genetic unit nor
> an areal grouping.
> If the word doesn't occur in Italic, Celtic and
> Germanic, its local loss
> (replacement by new words for 'barley'?) is more
> likely than a
> "dialectal" innovation in the East.
> >
> > =========== The 'oats' word was something rather
> complex like
> > *h2awig^-i/s-) and any connection with *jewo-, let
> alone the rest of
> > the list, is unlikely. ==============
> > Utterly stupid
>
> Calling anything that goes against your pet idea
> "utterly stupid" is
> infantile, especially if your own argument is
> fatally flawed (see below).
>
> > I am precisely explaining to you that this is an
> example of inherited
> > *z which results in *H2 in western PIE and *y in
> eastern PIE.
>
> A few branches (Balto-Slavic, Greek, probably
> Iranian) have BOTH
> *h2awig^(s)- and *jeu(h1)o- (cf. Lith. aviz^a`
> 'oats' : jãvas 'corn,
> grain'), so your "split *z" seems to be an illusion.
>
> Piotr
>
>