Re: xW/w (was: Lithuanian diphthongs)

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

>
> W dniu 2011-06-14 20:07, stlatos pisze:
>
> > This site:
> >
> > http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=/data/ie/germet&text_number=+++811&root=config
> >
> > gives OSx withum-lík , which I hadn't seen elsewhere.
>
> I have no fully reliable dictionary of OSax. I can vouch for the OFris.
> forms. My Hoffmann/Popkema (2008) records <wetma, witma, wetme>.

My point is that the two C (dHd < the compound) are needed to explain all forms, w opt. sim. to:


* bYHud-n.-mHó+ = deepest > bottom

*
bYHud-n.-mHó+
bYHud-s.-mHó+ N-dis.
bYHuds.-mHó+
bYHuts.-mHó+
bYHut-mHó+ s>0/C_C


*
wedHd*-xW-n.ó+
wedHz*-xW-n.ó+
wedHs*-xW-n.ó+
wets*-xW-n.ó+
wet-xW-n.ó+ s>0/C_C


which requires original C instead of u.