Rye

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2008-02-10 22:57, fournet.arnaud wrote:
>
> >
> > PIE *urughyo- is _not_ a PIE root!
> > PR
> > ============
> > Pokorny : p. 1183
> > It is a PIE Root *wrugh
> > Variant form wrigh- (Thrakian)
>
> *wrugHjo- is a ghost root. All that is warranted by Germanic and
> Balto-Slavic is *rugHi- ~ *rugHjo-. Germanic, in particular, shows no
> evidence of *wr-, which is a strong argument against an initial *w in
> this root.

If it once had an initial wru- dissimilation between w and u could have changed w>0 or
u>i.

>Thrac. (?) briza is a poor match and one can't simply
> _assume_ that it's a cognate of *rugHjo- just because it may mean 'rye'.
> How can you rule out the possibility that the initial <b-> reflects *bH,
> or that the <-z-> comes something entirely different from *-gHj-?

What would be harm be if we speculated wrongly, knowing failure was possible?

It doesn't matter if there's a possibility they're unrelated, they're close enough that
speculation will take place. If good speculations make some people more convinced, they
won't be discouraged from trying again, perhaps with some efforts more fruitful than
others.