*G^EN-

[petegray]

Pat said:

> Let me clarify what I was saying. Even if we could trace all attested IE
> forms back to *g^enH1-, and no attested form could be derived from **g^en-
> ...I would still maintain that the non-attestation of **g^en- is a historical
> accident, and that **g^en- still must be reconstructed for some earlier date
> in order to provide the basis for *g^enH1-.

I reply:

This is based entirely on a theoretical assumption.  Nothing wrong with
that, but not everyone is in agreement on that theory.  Furthermore, it also
assumes that *g'en is CVC.   In PIE terms, I would see it as CV, and the
attested root *g'enH / g'nH as the true CVC, parallel to so many PIE roots
such as *leikw / likw, *derk / drk ....etc

Peter