Re: PIE -*C-presents

On 2008-02-20 00:10, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> I think "without no evidence, there is no case" is going a bit far.

Try saying that in a courtroom ;)

> As 'evidence', I can point to an overwhelming number of roots of
> *CVC(V) form. Is that the limit for a root? I believe it is, you do
> not.

Because I can see many more complex roots (*CCVC, *CVCC-, *CCVCC-) with
my own eyes. Pretending that they don't exist doesn't make them disappear.

> As a second bit of 'evidence, failure to identify an *aw- root with a
> related meaning certainly is of interest.
>
> Would you agree that 11. *awe:-, 'exert one's self', might be
> semantically related thtough the idea of 'more than normal'?

The semantic connection is strained and the root itself is very doubtful
(note the question mark in Pokorny). LIV places Skt. va:yati (whose
meaning, by the way, is almost the opposite of 'increase') under
*h1wah2- rather than *h2weh1-.

Piotr