From: Piotr Gasiorowski
> I don't misunderstood it: I refuse to trust that a supposed (non-Not everywhere. In quite a few branches "laryngeal schwas" were simply
> existing) pre-aspiration could have been different based on a kind of
> vocalized x or based on a on-vocalized one.
> 1. the vocalisation of laryngeal was done with a prop. vowel =>
> otherwise why we have vowels everywhere as later result of this
> 2. the single position where this prop. vowel can be inserted inAnd you know it all via divine revelation, I suppose. Why should *px&-
> the specify contexts was BEFORE the laryngeal /p&x-/ Becuase px&- has
> an impossibel syllabification
> 3. The prop. vowel account also for Latin 'four' (and forWhat the hell is a "boshiman" language?
> Albanian ;four' too (see Eric Hamp) kWtr > kWVtr- so this was a
> largely used instrument in PIE
> => so don't continue to tell stories here about vocalisations of
> the 'boshiman' languages, 'retard' etc...
> You can talk about 'failures' ONLY after you will propose a validI'm afraid that you are the only person on the list who can't see what
> syllabification for dHugh2ter and ph2ter
> Since seems that you are not able to propose something else
> coherent against /p&x-ter/ and /dHu-g&x-ter/
> => nobody can see based on what you are talking about here 'failures'
> It's older than any other Indo-Iranian law.No matter how old it is in IIr., it's _restricted_ to IIr. Crucially,
> Important to add that it farway preceed the vocalization of
> vocalised laryngeal to i
> > What other reasonable etymologies have you got for unaspirated vs.They have been posted on many occasions. Search the archives. I can't do
> > aspirated stops in the instrumental suffix, for example?
> Post the examples here => I asked for this several times