From: stlatos
Message: 60719
Date: 2008-10-09
>to be
> On 2008-10-09 18:03, stlatos wrote:
>
> > This was PIE *xauswo:s with dissim. of u-w > u-0 in most (not Greek
> > *auswo:s > *a:uso:s).
>
> You have the rather irritating habit of saying "it was PIE *X" when you
> really mean "I believe it was PIE *X". As the reconstruction seems
> a private idea of yours, you might at least justify it somehow. Why notBecause *sxausos > hauos, etc., with no long a:u.
> *h2auso:s > *auho:s > *a:wos, etc.?
>
> Piotr
>