From: Piotr Gasiorowski
> On 2007-03-14 00:37, alexandru_mg3 wrote:P.S. Judging from your example (Russ. nyt') and your formulation of the
>> I will start with the 'worst thing': No. Piotr, you are not right.
>> The (H)RHV- roots are ones of the most problematic PIE roots:
>> For the (H)RHV-sequences (initial position) the outputs are:
>> a) the H is simply lost
>> b) the laryngeal H will be subject of the laryngeal-metathesis
>> If you know some contra-examples please post them here...
> Laryngeal metathesis in *(C)rHV- sequences?? What do you mean? *(C)rVH-?
> No such thing is attested. The PIE resonant was normally syllabic in
> such sequences, and after the loss of the laryngeal the outcome was
> phoneticaly *(C)r.rV- or *(C)&rV- (the difference is largely a matter of
> a given author's favoured notation). The further development is
> branch-specific. Cf. Lat. haru-(spex) < *g^Hr.H-u- (Skt. hirá: 'vein'),
> Skt. giráti, Slavic *z^IroN < *gWr.h3-é/ó- 'devour', Lat. varus 'pimple'
> < *wr.H-o- (Lith. viras 'tapeworm cyst').