From: stlatos
Message: 59547
Date: 2008-07-12
>There was no mistake; other people do believe this (some say
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
> wrote:
> > 2. He claims that in Gmc PIE *kW lost its labial element before
> > PIE *o. What about Gmc *hwat "what", from PIE *kWod?
> Well I don't know anything about Germanic, I fear, so
> I can't know what to make of this one. It does look
> like an important, and surprising, defect in Lehmann's
> understanding of things, if it can't be explained.
>
> Is Lehmann the only one to claim this loss before *o.
>
> Is there any pattern at all of loss of labialization
> before *o which Lehmann might have overgeneralized?
>
> Is it possible - sorry if this question is a stupid
> one - that /a/ and /o/ were switched in the footnote?
> Does it make any more sense to say that labialization
> was lost before *a?