But we also have *-gH- > -h- (veho,
vehiculum, traho) and *gH- > zero (anser). The change *-igH- > -ig- is
also nicely illustrated by *dH(e)igH- > fi(:)g-, though I don't quite
understand why *-gH- should have been "hardened" only in this particular
environment. Pisani argued that the regular Latin reflex was -g- in all
intervocalic position, and that -h-/zero was only found in dialectally
influenced words. Perhaps he was right, cf. vegetus <
*wegH-eto-.
The development of *-gWH- is even more
messy, e.g.
*gWH- > f- (formus)
*-gWHs > -ks (nix)
*-gWH- > -w- (nivis)
*-ngWH- > -ng- (ningit)
*-gWHr- > -br- (febris)
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] More on the crummy sanguis/asrk
connection
Or ve:na < *wegh-sna:- ?
I've already ever doubts about the various
developments of *gH in Latin...
gH- > Italic X- > h-
-gH- > Italic -gh- > -h- >
zero
-igH- > -ig cf.
(ve-)stigium
-ngH, -rgH, -lgH > -ng, -rg, -lg
gHr- > gr- or r-?
-gHr- > ?