*G^EN-

[petegray]

>does that, in your opinion, mean there was no *g^en-?

One senses an unfriendly trap - which is fun - but I do prefer a more open
sharing of ideas.

Studiously trying to avoid your trap, I say that the existence of the root
(or roots) *g'enH / g'neH says nothing at all about the existence of *g'en.
I do however allow that I am not aware of any IE forms that would point to
such a root, rather than to *genH with loss of H.

Is that carefully enough worded for you?

Peter