João said:
>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- > ?
Perhaps not entirely true! Firstly, clarification. I assume you are
meaning the single PIE phoneme /gh/ , not the combination /g/ + any
laryngeal.
If you mean /gh/, your theories don't appear to fit the evidence completely.
(i) Medial -gh- > -h- survives quite happily in Latin in some words, eg veho
< *wegh-.
(ii)Likewise the initial /h-/ disappears in others, eg anser < *ghans
(iii) Medial ghC > gC, eg figulus < figlus < *dhigh-lo-
(iv) Initial ghr, ghl > gr, gl, eg glaber <*ghlHdh-ro-, gramen < *ghrH-s-mn.
The one exception is probably a Sabellian word borrowed into Latin, namely
ravus < *ghraH-wo. The true Latin form survives in gravastellus = "grey
headed person" (Pl. Epid. 620).
(v) medial gh near /u, r, l/ > h.
(vi) The derivation of vesitigium is far from certain. The outcome (-g-
< -gh-) would be unique in Latin (I think), so it seems unlikely.
Peter