[tied] Re: Ie. *laywos/leh2iwos (was: ka and k^a)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

>
> > >
> > >Would your new rule be able to rescue Sanskrit 'ambu-' "water"
> for
> > >the family of *Hap- "water" (< PIE *xamb- ?). Cf Gr.
> omphax "ripe
> > >grape"
> >
> > No, the a- is explained well enough by *h2-[*],
>
> Only if you assume *h2e-; if /a/ is preserved, rather than

produced

> by h2 there's nothing wrong in *h2aN-.

BTW on the topic:
front high vowels palatalize velars (often)
do front high nasal vowels palatalize velars?
That would mean
*k^e = *c^e, *k^o = *ko
*k^eN = *ka, *k^oN = *ka

> >and my rule
> > does not concern itself with labial stops, nor does it offer
> > carte blanche to mix up the reflexes of *b, *bh and *p.
>
> I know I'd have to obtain that carte blache elsewhere, namely by
> assuming the root is loaned.

By the way, such an assumption would also get the *kap- root out of
the many phonetic constraints it faces if it is perforce assumed to
be inherited from PIE. But of course the removal of constraints by
assumption of loan also takes out the crossword fun of linguistics.



Torsten