From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 64024
Date: 2009-06-04
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> The full e-grade in derivatives of *sed- is not surprising, as there is
> some evidence of a Narten present (*se:d-/*sed-) from this root. Still,
> no fientive in *o, and the only unambiguous example you gave was the
> monster reconstruction "*louhk-eh1-". Familiar indeed.
>
My question for you is simple:
The Lithuanian verb should be reconstructed or not?
If Yes,
Please do yourself your own reconstruction for lauk- and for the rest ... and try to avoid 'the monsters'
When you will have another output for lauk- and anything else but a long e: after it...please post it here : and I promise you that I will post to Derksen...asking for correction...
I wish you Good Luck!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> I asked how _you_ could know there was no laryngeal in the preforms of
> <mare> and <manus>. You haven't answered my question.
>
> Piotr
Because there are 'no traces' of a laryngeal in all the related cognates for them --- the laryngeals are indentified 'by their traces'
- h in Hittite
- Balto-Slavic accentology
- different vocalisations of h1,h2,h3 in different languages
- different RH outputs in different contexts & languages
(even rH > ar before a vowel in Celtic to give you an example related to our topic)
- Brugmann Law in Sanskrit
etc...
So here is like in a Trial: I don't need to show that I'm not guilty : so I don't need to show that there isn't any laryngeal.
You need to show me 'a trace' ....of that one, if you see one...
Why you didn't ask me, based on what, there is no -t- in mare, manus? the answer is the same....I 'don't see' any trace
Marius