On 2008-10-09 20:15, stlatos wrote:
> He's wrong, and I replied to your explanation, not his. If you want
> to change your criticism of my theory, I'll argue against the new as well.
No change needed on my part. I still believe that *auho:s > *a:wo:s.
Perhaps I failed to make it clear, but Lubotsky's *h2suso- is 'dry', not
'dawn'. I quoted it to refute yor counterexample, not to offer a
different analysis of the 'dawn' word. *h2seus- 'dry' is also accepted
in this shape by the LIV.
> Even if *ahuho- existed, and gave *a:uho-, which I doubt,
It didn't (see above), so your other comments can be skipped as based on
a misunderstanding.
The paradigm of *h2auso:s was originally proterokinetic, with *h2usés-
in the weak cases (hence Skt. gen.sg. us.ás, dat. us.áse). It seems to
reflect an animate personification of a neuter -es- stem. Such
"animatised" nouns often shifted their accent to the final syllable,
imitating the usual hysterokinetic accentuation of animate consonantal
stems.
Piotr