From: stlatos
Message: 67725
Date: 2011-06-10
>How odd. I wasn't aware that type of non-attestation was evidence, since in:
> W dniu 2011-06-03 23:27, stlatos pisze:
>
> > Also, why does <vienas> "one" have <v->?
>
> > It's obviously because PIE h3 = xW and in IE xW > w and w > xW were opt.
> > (such as in the dual * -ó:xW / -ó:w ), though this is not standard theory.
>
> It's extremely non-obvious, given
>
> (1) the fact that there is no *w- in its cognates in Slavic (*ino-) or
> even West Baltic (<aina->), which points to an inner East Baltic
> innovation rather than a retained archaic variant;
> As to <fial> being isolated within Germanic, so is ON ylgr, and yet nobody doubts its archaic status.you take exactly the opposite approach when it's your theory being criticized (KW > P near KW, which has no good ev. at all).
>It is opt.
> (2) etyma with securely reconstructible *h3- in East Baltic (like the
> words for 'eagle' or 'eye') do not show any particular tendency to
> develop v-prothesis.
>Let me be clear: xW/w alt. is as obvious and attested throughout IE as any change. There is no possible reason to doubt it, and the only reason it isn't accepted is the failure of linguists to examine ev. and explain it simply. Instead they have chosen to stay with their old theories out of momentum and personal esthetic preferences. You've been given the opportunity to see what is obvious many times, by me and by others, and have usually chosen to argue the opposite with things you claim to be evidence that are not. Sometimes you change your mind later, when you see the light for some reason. You need to see it now, or else you will have chosen to fail for no reason.
> Whatever the source of this /v-/ (there are several explanations, none
> of them universally accepted), it is as likely to be "laryngeal" as the
> irregular /w-/ of Modern English <one>.
>