Re: Lithuanian diphthongs

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> 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?

I've given ex. before. Also:


* xWoxWkWó:n. = one of a pair of eyes;
* xWowkWó:n.

>>

augó Go;


* xWòxWkWt.ór.+ xWxWkWt.r.+ = seer / looker;
* xWxWkWt.r.ó+
* xWwkWt.r.ó+
* xWukWt.r.ó+
* wukWt.r.ó+
* kWt.r.uwó+

>>

{kWtruwa(n)-} = witness H;


* xWwas.k-i+
* ks.axW-wi+
* t.s.axW-wi+
* t.s.aGW-wi+
{sagWi-} H; {tawi-} Lw;


* xWwas.k-yón.+
* w
* v

>>

? brd>
baskaíno: G; fasci:no: L;

>
> 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'.

There's no ev. it's prothesis.

> 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
>