From: Tavi
Message: 69398
Date: 2012-04-21
>As I said before, this paleo-IE dialect is actually part of what IE-ists reconstruct as PIE, so their output is more or less scattered among all the historical IE languages, although more so in the "Pontic" or "Kurgan" group, i.e. Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian and partially Celtic.
> > This is precisely my point: your "PIE" is precisely the paleo-IE
> > dialect where this word became denasalized. As I said many times,
> > IMHO the so-called "PIE roots" don't belong to a single language but
> > come from several paleo-dialects.
>
> As long as you haven't defined which IE languages this 'paleo-IE dialect' fed words tp, it is unnecessary by Occam.
>
> How do you explaim then that the "fog" word is denasalized only inAdrados thinks this happened by analogy with dangùs 'sky'.
> Lithuanian, but your examples (presumably) are denasalized in many
> more IE languages?
>
> > The fact the nasal survived to denasalization makes me think the
> > word had originally a laryngeal at word-initial: *Hn- (clusters
> > *Hn-/*Hr- are rather common in Proto-NEC, as for example in the
> > 'night' word), then lost in "PIE".
>
> But how would *Hn-/*Hr- explain the d- of debesìs?
>
> > Remember that besides *nebh- we've also got *ºnbh- (e.g. GreekOh, I think I should have warned you not to confuse a *real* laryngeal consonant with the so-called PIE "laryngeals".
> > aphrós 'foam' < *ºnbh-r-o-).
>
> But we don't need a laryngeal for getting a- from zero-grade *n.-.
>