From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 15831
Date: 2002-10-01
>> >[MCV:]I mean that they show that initial *h1- is not a chimera, and make it at least
>> >> Put differently: Hittite zero-grade forms like as-, ad- (*&1s-, *&1d-)
>> >> force me
>> >> to accept that PIE had no words starting with a vowel, but they do not
>> >> force me
>> >> to accept something as unnatural as that the initial phoneme in all
>> such
>> >> cases
>> >> was /h-/.
>> >
>> >I do not see how Hitt. as-, ad- can force one to any such inference.
>>
>> The inference that these roots began with *h1-, I presume.
>
>No, the inference that there were no words in the language beginning with
>a plain vowel. The fact that *these* words had /H1C-/ does not exclude
>others from having /VC-/.
>[MCV:]No, but given what is *otherwise* known about *h1, we can confidently say it was
>> I was talking about *h1t, not *h2t. OK, let's make that: "and I accept
>> that in cases like *h1t > *th, *h1 must have been /h/, given what is
>> otherwise
>> known about *h1 (e.g. that it wasn't something like /x/ or /X/)."
>
>If /H2/ was any of the last-mentioned, i.e. [x] or [X] (velar fricatives
>of different degrees of backness), and underlying *-H1t- and *-H2t- *both*
>produce PIE *-th-, then this cannot be reason enough to determine /H1/ as
>not a velar fricative.
>I do it on the basis of its disappearance, itsWe agree completely. However, given the two hypotheses on the table here about
>syllabic reflex /e/ in Greek, its aspiration, and its distinct lack of
>breaking (after high vowels in Greek, Armenian and Tocharian).