Re: [tied] Catching up again...

On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:04:46 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
><gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
>>Ogdoos derives from ogdow-o-, which can scarcely be a reflex of *oktH3-o-s.
>
>But *ok^t@3wos is possible in Greek.
>
> You mean pre-Greek. But "@3" is a vowel (> Greek o), not a voiced obstruent, and as such cannot be held responsible for *kt- > -gd-.

But before being a vowel it was an obstruent (I wouldn't say voiced,
*voicing*, apparently).

> Do we really need ANY laryngeal here? Why not go the whole hog and take *okto:u at face value? What is the real evidence for a laryngeal in the dual ending?

Kartvelian *os'txw- for one. All those long vowels. The hiatus in
Greek no:ï(n), spho:ï(n). The Balto-Slavic accent.

>Scientists are supposed to have a taste for parsimony. Obviously the evidence for "h2" is incontrovertible, and the evidence for "h1" is decent though less direct. But "h3" (as different from "h2") is anything but securely established.

How would you reconstruct *deh3- "to give" then? And can you expand
in general on the doubtfulness of *h3?


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...