Re: Lithuanian diphthongs

W dniu 2011-06-10 22:30, stlatos pisze:

> > (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.
>
> It is opt.

Any convincing independent examples of this option, please?

> > 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>.
> >
>
> 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.

Let's stick to the topic, shall we? The question did not concern other
cases where a *w _might_ be of laryngeal origin, but the East Baltic
prothesis in the word for 'one'. Not only is it isolated in Balto-Slavic
_and_ Indo-European in this particular lexeme; there is also no evidence
that the numeral 'one' had PIE *h3- in the first place. Therefore, there
is no compelling reason whatsoever to regard the prothesis in <víenas>
as archaic.

Piotr