Re: [tied] How many laryngeals?

Some thoughts on Piotr's question whether we need h3:

I suppose in theory -o- in any noun or present verb could be explained as
o-grade rather than eh3, but what about the following?

(a) Latin o:di < ?h3e-h3d-ai. This is difficult to explain as h2o-h2d-ai.
If we do not allow o< eh3, and insist on o< oh2, then we have a different
pattern here. It would be a unique example of early reduplication with an
o vowel (later ones such as momordi are merely vowel harmony within the
perfect, where the perfect vocalism depends on the present). And it's no
use running to o-grade perfects. There are none in Latin with
reduplication. There is also the parallel example of Oscan uupsens =
/o:psens/ < h3e-h3p- (meaning they did, Latin fe:ce:runt; stem found in
Latin opus).
o < eh3 allows us to keep a single pattern for verb formation, while
o< oh2 makes us postulate different patterns for these two verbs.

(b) Greek "Attic reduplication" (which is not limited to Attic at all). I
mean perfects of this pattern:
opo:pa, odo:da, olo:la, omo:moka etc.
If we do not allow o< eh3, and insist on o< oh2, then we have a different
pattern in these verbs from those in -a- and -e-, such as:
aka:koa (Attic ake:koa), ele:laka, ele:luTa, and so on.
o < eh3 allows us to keep a single pattern for verb formation, whil o< oh2
makes us postulate different patterns for different verbs.

(c) Cases which show ablaut o: ~ [o ~] @ with no evidence of any forms in e
grade. One or two might be mere coincidence - the e-grade happens not to be
found - but are there too many for this to be believeable? Examples
include:
Pokorny p774 *oid / id swell
Pokorny p784 o:us/@us mouth
Pokorny p785 o:us/@us/us ear
Pokorny p783 o:iom/@iom avian
and others.
o< h3 allows us to retain well-known patterns of ablaut with full grade,
whereas o < oh2 produces unusual patterns.

These seem to me to suggest that eh3 provides a neater explanation of the
facts than -oh2.
Peter