Re: [tied] n/r (was: PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with')

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] n/r (was: PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with')


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Utterly untrue; and if you think so, demonstrate it with examples.
> >
> > Secondly *H (1/2/3) was probably a laryngeal fricative rather than a
> dorsal
> > one (your velar).
> >
> > And Hittite shows that /?/ should also reconstructed.
>
> I thought there was no evidence as to whether Hittite retained /?/ or not.

***
Patrick:

To me, a 'h'-less initial vowel, even if not completely consistent,
indicates /?/.

***

> > There is PIE *H
> > (probably /h/) and *h though more in earlier stages. But that is a
> no-no for
> > Cybalist.
>
> Largely because no suitable set of vowels could be found for the more
> complicated roots containing laryngeals. Jens's comments on the
> accent effects were the most telling counter-argument.


***
Patrick:

Not sure I understand what a 'complicated' root is nor what a "suitable"
vowel is.

PIE had two short vowel, *e and *o; and three long vowels: *e:, *a:, and *o.

Unfortunately, any of the long vowels could be shortened when semantic
integrity was not impugned.

***

> > ***
> > Patrick:
>
> > And what is Khowar?
>
> A Dardic language - see
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=khw , but treat the
> family tree as a non-cladistic classification.
>
> Richard.

***
Patrick:

Let me put it another way: what significance does Khowar have for these
questions?

***