Re: *a/*a: ablaut

On 2008-02-12 23:05, fournet.arnaud wrote:

> wa(:)g is bad because of wra(:)g
> same meaning
> erroga exist
> rôks "breach" exists

The root is *wreh1g^- here, and érro:ge < *we-wroh1g^-e. As you can see,
a root with an internal laryngeal behaves differently from *wa(:)g^-.

> wa(:)stu is unclear
> because it can be *ba?-t-tu "housing"
> ghladh- is so uncontrollably complex
> it proves nothing.

Uncontrollably complex? It looks simple and quite controllable to me.

> You wrote you had *lots of* examples
>
> Why don't you give a clear clean example in
> a CAC-vowel structure ?
> Where no suffix is polluting the situation.

I'll post a longer list tomorrow. It's getting late.

Piotr