Re: dhuga:ter ('LARYNGEALS')

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter ('LARYNGEALS')


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
>
>
> ***
>
> There is not nor has there ever been an infix in PIE-derived languages.
> Rasmussen's *o-infix is pure fantasy. The only phenomenon that looks like
> an
> infix is *CVnC, which is either 1) a metathesis from *CVC-n-;
> Patrick
> ***
>
> I'm interested to learn more about Rasmussen -o- infix
> even though it's probable I will adhere.
> I suppose it may already have been discussed.

***

Well, research the archives of the list.

***

> Now, the -n- in Latin fra-n-go
> and Greek deik-n-u- mi
> have nothing in common.
>
> Latin -n- is a present-meaning morpheme
> Greek -n- in that word is derivational and
> it's tense/aspect neutral.

***

The -n- of <frango:> is a retention of a usually lost nasal feature of /ŋ/.

This is shown pretty conclusively by Norw. dial <branka>, 'break'.

***


> Other infixes in PIE are :
> -r- -l- -t- -dh- -s-
>
> Arnaud
> =============

***

Prove it.


Patrick

***