Re: Re[3]: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 08:48:33 +0100, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Brian M. Scott
>Looked more to me as if it stopped when Miguel decided that
>he was wasting his time.

That's true. Still, I'm gonna waste some more...

>There remains a certain number
>of clarifications and objections
>to address :
>
>1. What is the result of *per
>in Lydian, Luwi
>if any contrast with *pe:r existed ?

This is Anatolian. One has to be thankful for the data that
we have.

>No answer has been provided.
>Anatolian looks neutral, rather than
>providing clear support.

Have you read Craig Melchert's "Anatolian Historical
Phonolgy"? Get back to me when you have.

>2. Why has Latin a *short* e in iecur ?
>We should expect **iacur or **ie:cur
>if Miguel's theory was right ?

I have no idea why we should expect *iacur.
Most languages have *yékWr.(t), Greek and Avestan have
*yé:kWr.(t). Since it is easy to explain *yé:kWr.(t) >
*yékWr.(t) and impossible to explain *yékWr.(t) > *yé:kWr.t,
Greek and Avestan preserve an archaism.

>3. Why are supposed instances all
>words that end with -r# ?
>ker(d), gwher, H2ster,

Not true.

>I will add :
>4. What about the case of n.gwen ?
>Greek ade:n, Latin inguen

Simple, Greek is masculine *n.gWé:n (< *n.gWén-s), while
Latin is neuter *n.'gWn.

>I also consider that the long e: issue
>cannot be separated from the long o:
>
>I wrote :
>
>>You are in fact confirming my feeling
>>that /e:/ is an innovation of Central PIE.
>>Some Greek words have long o:
>>klo:ps "stealer"
>>tho:ps "flatterer"
>>tro:ks "worm"
>>sko:r "s*t"
>>Obviously /o:/ is an innovation

It's Szemerényi's law, and it's general Indo-European.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...