--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:
> Since Arm. has sw > xw > kHw > kH wouldn't the presence of kH in the
> reflexive pronouns at least warrant an investigation? Since I said
> w>m, isn't the presence of n. / r. instead of r in the possessive
> indicative of the possibility of a nasal previously in the stem (which
> transfered nasality to the following r as it regularly became p)?
The ap- reflexives are again pan-Modern-Indo-Aryan and their history
has been investigated throroughly. They have nothing to do with PIE
*sw-. If you invite us to take seriously a monstrosity like this --
*swer. > *xmer. > *axmer.o+ > *axmr.o+ *akHpn.o+ > apn.- / apr.- '() own'
-- all it demonstrates is that you have no idea what you're talking
about. It's evident you haven't taken a look at a grammar of Hindi or
any other Mod.IA language (let alone a historical grammar of IA), and
yet despite your ignorance you propose to revolutionise IA studies.
It's all too silly for words.
Piotr