Odp: Odp: [tied] gr!

Where is your little laryngeal indeed? What particular nominative is seen in Hittite? And maybe you could specify where and how *g^H- contrasts with *k^- in Hittite. Why did they spell *g^Hesr 'hand' as <kessar>, for example? The same holds for other phonation-type contrasts which dissapear word-initially in Hittite, e.g. <taru> for *doru. For some morphemes <t/d-> or <k/g-> vary at random, for others one or the other form predominates. So what? If a language has a well-developed written form, scribal practice gradually converges on some kind of standard ortography, especially as regards common words. If you insist there is a hidden regularity somewhere, a neglected generalisation everybody has missed until now, it's great news, but please prove it.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----

From: tgpedersen@...

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 11:39 AM

Subject: Re: Odp: [tied] gr!

> I'd agree if it could be shown that Hittite had the voiced : voiceless contrast word-initially. I'm afraid <gir> only reflects the scribes' preference for a particular syllabogram. Notice also that all the other Hittite case forms of the word (<kardijas>, etc.) contain <kar>, while Sanskrit <hrd-> has an invariable <h->. > > Piotr > I am sorry to hear that <gir> only reflects the scribe's preference for a particular syllabogram. I didn't realize that. Could you please get him to send a posting to cybalist to confirm that? :) Or else, perhaps some more details of this particular explanation? You realize of course that I am campaigning again for my very clever and sorely ignored theory in cybalist #6279, whenceupon Sanskrit <h-> would be a generalization of the nominative seen in Hittite (now where's my laryngeal when I need it)? Torsten