Re[2]: [tied] Indo-Uralic?

At 1:32:27 AM on Tuesday, February 12, 2008, Patrick Ryan
wrote:

> Not of much use in my opinion. Uralic contacts were
> probably with IE dialect speakers not PIE speakers.

> There is no PIE **c'næX as far as I know.

He appears to have his own notation for PIE phonemes. This
*c'næX- seems to be an error for *q'næX-, which would be his
version of *gWneh2-.

> The same for *c'nh-(i)e/o-, 'man'.

His version of *g^nh1-(i)e/o-.

Brian