From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 55064
Date: 2008-03-12
----- Original Message -----
From: alexandru_mg3
> ===============
>
> I don't think this example proves the supposed rule.
>
> Hebrew d_b_r "to speak"
> is the same thing as PIE *wer "speak"
> with inverted order of morphemes.
> No traces of H1.
> This is a case of alternation
> *wer-H1 versus *wer-dh.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ==================
Same case as in *bHoi-h- /*bHoi-dH- isn't it?
Marius
===============
Why not ?
Do you have data to support
either *bheidh-om or *bhidh-om ?
Like in LAtin v(e)rbum ?
Arnaud
================