From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 55371
Date: 2008-03-17
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
If it were only Baltic I would have said Baltic and not
Balto-Slavic.
It's no more difficult to believe than that the same
distinction was maintained in Greek, Armenian and Tocharian,
where *ih2/3 and *uh2/3 yield *ya(:) [~ *yo(:)] and *wa(:)
[~ *wo:], but *ih1 and *uh1 yield *i: and *u:. This soundlaw
was discovered in 1970 by E.D. Francis and independently in
1977 by R. Normier.
In Balto-Slavic, we must have had:
1) sjuh1-láh2- > sju:lá: > sjú:la: [Hirt] > CS s^i"la
2) bhuh2-láh2 > bhu&-lá: > bu:lá: [no Hirt] > CS bylá
3) pih3-láh2 > pi&-lá: > pi:lá: [no Hirt] > CS pilá
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
=======================
Thank you for explanations.
I have understood your point,
I won't change my mind
for the time being,
but I'll keep in mind
your explanations.
Arnaud
===================