On 2008-04-08 00:33, Patrick Ryan wrote:
> Why is 'my' *CVH indivisble when yours (*gWa(:)H(2)-) is divisble?
I don't claim that *gWah2- is divisible (or even transparently
analysable) in PIE terms, only that it is _ultimately_ related to
*gWem-. As I say in my article, PIE *gW in *gW-em- and *gW-ah2- may well
reflect an older cluster. The words I discuss are presumably relicts of
some pre-PIE derivational process. I accept such things whenever I find
good eveidence for them. The case of *dr-eu-/*dr-em-/*dr-ah2- is rather
convincing but in order to prove that e.g. *pleh1- should be cut up into
*pl- and *-eh1- you'd have to present some real evidence rather than
your personal opinion on what the ultimate building blocks of PIE words
must have been like.
Piotr