Re: [tied] Thoughts on the existence of *H1

On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 11:09:47 -0000, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
>> A tentative example would be Grk. <gnáthos> "chin" compared with
>> Armenian <cnawt>, Lith. <z^ándas>, Latv. <zôds>, where Greek has *dh
>> (or *tH), Armenian *d, and Baltic may have either. The "jaw, chin"
>> word *g^enu- is properly reconstructed as *g^enh1-u- (as shown by
>Skt.
>> compunds in <hanu:-> and Greek "metrical lengthening" of <genu-> to
>> <genu:->). We can reconstruct *g^nh1-d-ós > *gn@... for Greek,
>> *g^ónh1-d-os for Baltic, and perhaps *g^(o)nh1-d-us [> *g^(u)n@... >
>> *c(u)natu > cnawt] for Armenian.
>
>But Lith. <z^ándas> is an oxytonon (N. pl. <z^andai~>), so, formally
>speaking, a reconstruction *g^onh1-d-ós would be more suitable for
>Baltic.

Yes. I was referring to the accent at the time of PIE Nullstufe (to
explain zero-grade in Greek, full-grade in Baltic, and probably
Armenian). The road from PIE accentuation to Balto-Slavic
accentuation is a difficult one, passing through changes known as
Dolobko's, Dybo's, Ebeling's, Endzeli:n's, Fortunatov's, Georgiev's,
Hartmann's, Hirt's, Hjelmslev's, Illich-Svitych's, Kortlandt's,
Leskien's, Meillet's, Nieminen's, Pedersen's, Saussure's, Shaxmatov's,
Stang's, van Wijk's and other Laws.