Re: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we discussing?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jouppe" <jouppe@...> wrote:

>
> > > Do you have any evidence for *kYwn,- instead of *kYuwn,-?
> >
> > Gmc. *xunða- could derive from either (or from *k^untó-, for that
> > matter). But we have Ved. s'vabHis (not +s'umbHis) < *k^wn.-bHis.
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> - - - - - -
> **kYuwn,- looks quite horrible to me, considering that /u/ and /w/
> are different graphemes for the same phoneme,

There is no proof of that, or reason to suppose that all u>w in a
regularly defined environment (or w>u in the opp.).

Anyway, as I've said before xW > v between V$_V or V$_C+syl then v>w
in most IE.

What do you propose for, say, *yuwn,ko+ 'young'?

> and two semivowels in a
> sequence like that!?! Did I miss something regarding PIE root-rules?

There is no reason to suppose 'dog' is formed from a verb root or
even that uw etc. can't be formed in derivatives of a verb root.