Re: [tied] Timing of ablaut
>Brugmann's Law *is* correct, but I think you are making it correctNo. Again you are pretending I said something I did not say. "defended at
>ad absurdum. .... if
>the way the law was first formulated is defended at all costs as the
>way it should be worded even in the present state of our knowledge,
all costs" is your language, not mine.
- On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:03:19 +0100, P&G <petegray@...> wrote:
>But what about the rather unlikely root *wortoko "quail" P1180 Skt vartaka-Well, the forms adduced by Pokorny do not really justify a reconstruction
>(m) vartika: (f) ?
*wortoko (vartaka-, vartika:, Grk. ortux). The quality of the second vowel
is not clear.
>And what of the Avestan gava "hands" Pok 403 (< *gow&)? I confess, I don'tYes, it does (but the picture is not as clear as in Sanskrit, given that
>even know if Brugmann's Law applies to Avestan.
etymological /a/ is sometimes written <a:> in Avestan, and etymological
/a:/ sometimes as <a>). Avestan <gava> is a dual, so properly /gava:/ [an
example of the ambiguity of Avestan spelling], presumably from *gowh2-oh3
>>If we look in Pokorny, weYes, but those are all examples of *o most likely _not_ to be from *h3e,
>>see no Indo-Iranian reflexes for ...
>Nor for *kob fit, *gol branch, *k'olemos rod, *kol(e)y lime, *kom beside,
>>and we have only the
>>closed-syllable variants of ...
>And of *sol(e)wo safe (Skt sarva)
and therefore complementary to the examples of *h3e that I was failing to
find in Indo-Iranian.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal