Re: [SPAM] [tied] Re: Latin /a/ after labials, IE *mori

On 2009-06-04 23:50, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> My question for you is simple:
> The Lithuanian verb should be reconstructed or not?

The Lithuanian verb doesn't have to be "reconstructed", being an extant
word. The question is if we have a right to reconstruct a PIE
*louhk-eh1-. Where else is such a form attested? In what branches other
than Baltic do we have reflexes of the root *leuhk-?

> 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.

But for your argument to hold water you would have to demonstrate the
_absence_ of the laryngeal, since it is supposed to condition the
delabialisation of *o. If you can't prove _independently_ that it wasn't
there, your argument becomes circular.

> 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

One can prove that there is no medial *-t- in them because a *t would
not have disappeared leaving no trace un this position. A laryngeal
could have done just that.

Piotr