Re: [tied] Re: vulgar Latin?

On Sun, 04 May 2003 20:07:51 +0200, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>>> [Glen:] Erh, are you sure it's not *xap-? Did laryngeals already die out in Indo-Iranian?
>
>> [Miguel:] LaryngealS (pl.) had died out. Perhaps the reflex of a single merged laryngeal remained (see e.g. Beekes' Avestan grammar, where he reconstructs phonemic /?/ in hiatus [altough you can have hiatus without gllottal stop]). The pronunciation of this single laryngeal is highly unlikely to have been a voiceless velar (or uvular) fricative.
>
>I'd vote for a glottal glide [h], as in English. It accounts best for the Indo-Iranian voiceless aspirates from stops plus *h2. Whatever the reflex was, it was sufficiently consonantal to influence syllable-division and block Brugmannian lengthening in *gWe-gWom-h2a > jagama versus *gWe-gWom-e > jaga:ma.

If you accept Beekes' arguments for its continued presence up until
the composition of the Gatha's, [h] becomes a bit of a problem, as
Avestan already has a [h], which *is* reflected in the spelling, of
different origin (*s).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...