> On 2007-03-14 07:45, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> > On 2007-03-14 00:37, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >> I will start with the 'worst thing': No. Piotr, you are not
> >> 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-
> >> If you know some contra-examples please post them here...
> > Laryngeal metathesis in *(C)rHV- sequences?? What do you mean? *
> > No such thing is attested. The PIE resonant was normally syllabicin
> > such sequences, and after the loss of the laryngeal the outcomewas
> > phoneticaly *(C)r.rV- or *(C)&rV- (the difference is largely amatter of
> > a given author's favoured notation). The further development ishirá: 'vein'),
> > branch-specific. Cf. Lat. haru-(spex) < *g^Hr.H-u- (Skt.
> > Skt. giráti, Slavic *z^IroN < *gWr.h3-é/ó- 'devour', Lat.varus 'pimple'
> > < *wr.H-o- (Lith. viras 'tapeworm cyst').the
> P.S. Judging from your example (Russ. nyt') and your formulation of
> possibilities, your ideas were inspired by Darden's 1990 article onshape
> laryngeals and syllabicity in BSl and IE. You should be warned that
> Darden's examples involve "long-diphthong" forms of the supposed
> *nHu-C-, *nHi-C-, where laryngeal metathesis IS admissible (if theof
> analysis is correct). Initial syllabic resonants in the zero grade
> *ReC- roots (possibly including *R.H-V-) were avoided perhapsalready in
> PIE, hence their frequent restructuring in the branches, but notethat
> in *h1r.H-V- the resonant is NOT initial.I confirm Piotr. I started with Darden article (some times ago).