*G^EN-

[proto-language]

Dear Rich and IEists:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Alderson" <alderson+mail at panix.com>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 1:10 PM

> On 1 Jun 2001, Patrick Ryan wrote, with respect to *gen{H_1}:

>> Are you also asserting that, therefore, there is no *g^en-?

> Yes.

> And don't come at me with arguments about Wurzeldeterminativa usw.

[PCR]

I think that perhaps you missed, in my first statement of this question, the
advice that I was not planning to argue for one view or the other. I am merely
interested in reading what your (and others') opinion is on this question. I am
sure you could probably more eloquently argue the question than I could if you
had the opposite opinion so what would be served by rehearsing it?

[RA]

> If such are not simply the result of over-analysis of the data, they are
> clearly so early in the prehistory of the IE language that they may well be
> Nostratic, and in any case are irrelevant to the question as posited.

[PCR]

I have no problem with that opinion. Thus, *g^enH1- would constitute an
exception to the general proposition that IE roots have the form CVC-. Every
good "rule" needs an exception or two.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th
St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ec
at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim
meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)