Re: The meaning of life: PIE. *gWiH3w-

As Piotr has pointed out, the high likelihood is that this word was
*rúgh-yo-, with stress-accent on a zero-grade syllable.

Where is this variant *(w)righ-, obviously with stress-accent on a
zero-grade form of **reigh-, found? bríza only?

Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 3:44 AM
Subject: Re:Re: Re: Re: [tied] Re: The meaning of life: PIE. *gWiH3w-


> > ===========
> > Chinese has mai4 : cereal in general
> > from mrïk
> > ï can just be a delabialized u
> > hence *mruk is structurally the same thing as *wrugh
> > I would not cut the word in little bits
> > if I were you.
> > Looks like a cognate *m?rugh
> > Arnaud
> > ===================
> Your Chinese speculations are totally unrelated to this discussion.
> PR
> ================
> I always try to check if PIE reconstructions make sense
> when compared with data from other families.
> My confidence in a PIE root increases
> when outside comparison does make sense.
> Arnaud
> =========
> > Now you have prefixes !? and preformatives ? for PIE
> >
> > I remember you recently asserted
> > PIE_has_NO_prefixes
> > or something like that.
> >
> > Arnaud
> > ====================
> You chose to forget what you have read; and then you regurgitate back what
> you hope to have read.
> PR
> ===========
> I did read it from you
> ARnaud
> ===============
>
> I will go through this once more in greater detail than I did for Torsten.
> [...]
> PPPIE had the forms: *Ci. *Ca, *Cu, *CiC, *CaC, and *CuC as roots.
> PR
> =============
> Lacks *o in the stock.
> Arnaud
> ===========
> Thus, I consider HS *ro(:)g- to be equivalent to PIE *réugh-, 'tangled
> hair/fur', a description of 'rye'.
>
> To *réugh- the formant -*yó was added which took the stress-accent from
> the
> first syllable and put it in zero-grade, meaning whatever the result of
> the
> Ablautvokal, in this case *é, that result disappears: *rughyé-.
> PR
> ============
>
> Thank you for explaining your own theory
> but I still disagree with too many basic facts.
> Arnaud
> =============
>
> This discussion started out with your scoffing at the correspondence of
> vowels in PIE because _you_ could not see how PIE *ú in *(w)rúghyo- could
> correspond to the í in Thracian bríza.
> PR
> ================
>
> You always have that stalinistic bias of twisting and distorting
> the other person's statements
> beyond the limits of caricature.
> Discussion would be easier if you could focus on data and your own
> theories
> instead of inventing some absurd and insulting interpretation of my point
> of
> view
> that I have never written nor implied.
>
> I never wrote it *corresponds*
> i and u are two different vowels.
> I wrote variant forms :
> wrugh-
> wrigh-
>
> Arnaud
> ===============
>
>
>