From: "Miguel Carrasquer"
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:51 AM

> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:03:29 +0100, Richard Wordingham
> <richard@...> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for the wider context. A mischievous thought though - aren't

there

> >any laryngeals in the IE root?
>
> Probably. My printed Pokorny is falling apart and missing the last two
> pages (I have them somewhere), and I can't check the Leiden online version
> (again). The other cognates were Greek, if I remember correctly. If the
> *g^ is really a *g^ and not a *g^h, then Slavic does not require
> laryngeals, by Winter's Law, but quite possibly the Greek forms

(re:gnumi?)

> do.

I don't know how to interpret the other Greek forms for rhé:gnumi - 2nd
aorist passive erráge:n, perfect érro:ga, rhag-ás, -ádos f. 'rent, chink',
rhó:x, rho:gós f. 'cleft', rho:g-ás, -ádos f. adj. 'broken, torn',
rho:galéos 'broken, torn'. To me /a/ argues for *h2 or no laryngeal, but
/e:/ and /o:/ say no *h2, but my knowledge in this field is limited.

As an aside, when I saw *wre:g^- (possibly *wreh1g^), I immediate thought of
English 'wreck', but that the meaning's converged, apparently from an
anagram *h1wreg^ ! (I don't think there's any direct evidence to choose
between *g^ and *g).

Richard.