--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> I have an issue with the consonantal *O/*R but luckily since
> it's not your favourite idea, Jens, you'll be happy to eject
> it once I'm through ;)
I will gladly accept anything demanded by the material we have to go
by. In fact I believe that is what I'm doing.
> However obviously something is
> making these funny o's and you've at least convinced me
> that this should be pursued.
Thank you, that is an important step already. Still, I feel I have
to add a few remarks of clarification to the reaction I have already
given.
> I think it should go as follows [...]:
>
> 1. Syncope
> 2. Case misanalysis
> 3. Saussure
> 4. a-Epenthesis (formerly my a-Prothesis)
>
> Saussure must be placed before Epenthesis to explain
> why *H disappears in those magical instances of *o
> when it doesn't for *e. [...]
Well, the whole point was that laryngeal deletion does not work with
zero vocalism either. Thus, we have *per&2- : *pr.H2- : *pór-naH2,
all before consonant; the same for *tel&2- : *tl.H2- : *tól-maH2;
*ter&1- : *tr.H1- : *tór-mos, and many others. In parallel fashion,
with roots that should not produce any "Saussure" since they have no
laryngeals, we have *stel- : *stl.- : *stol-mós; *ker- : *kr.- :
*kor-mós; *bhaH2- : *bh&2- : *bhoH2-náH2, and the same for many
other examples. You are making up a spurious solution to a problem
which is in reality quite different from the way you present it. The
o-form is neither the e-grade nor the zero-grade, but a derivative.
I do not think you are justified in quoting Piotr as support for
your mistake.
Jens