Re: [tied] *h3 (More deja-vu)

Perhaps it's the syllabic variety that you find troublesome :). I've never seen syllabic [B] in any language, and I wonder what it might look like if it existed. The resonance (formant structure) of [B] is practically the same as that of [w] and [u] (it's the noise of friction that makes the difference), so one would expect syllabic [B] to be indistiguishable from [u]. Another question: via what stages did *h3 disappear? If through being lenited, how did it avoid a merger with [w]?

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: P&G

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:06 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] *h3 (More deja-vu)

Daft theory of the week: h3 was actually /B/ (voiced biabial fricative) < **/b/. Therefore, as required, more "consonantal" than /m n r l w y /, but still continuant enough to have a syllabic form, replaced by /a/ or /i/. Please don't lock me up yet. Even I don't believe it. But can someone tell me why I don't believe it???