Thoughts on the existence of *H1

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 9226
Date: 2001-09-09

I'm going to be contraversial as usual and deny the existence of
*H1 as a single distinct phoneme. Its major diappearance and yet
continuation in Greek as *e isn't surprising if it were truely
*[&] in words like *h1sus and *h1rudHros. Schwa usually disappears
very easily.

So, verb roots of the form *CVCH1- were probably in reality
disyllabic, again making *H1 equivalent to *& or even *e. In fact,
that explains *genH1- which, if truely *gene-, would derive from
earlier MIE *k:ene-. This way, when given the modal suffix *-xWe-
(IE *-x-), it's accent would mutate accordingly to form *k:en�xWe
with the usual *a-vocalism in the unmarked 3rd person
singular/plural stative (Note IE statives in *-o-).

Only one strange question for Piotr... The 3ps of Late IE *g^nox-
wouldn't be *g^no:u, by chance, would it? That's what my current
MIE-to-LIE sound rules predict. Based on MIE *t:W�xe "two"
(*dwo:u), *kWetW�xe "eight" (ok^to:u) and *k:elaxWe "sis's hub"
(*g^lo:u-), it seems clear that any instance of MIE *-aXe became
*-a:we and then *-a:u by approximately 5000 BCE before undergoing
vowel shift to *-o:u in Late IE. Hence, my enquiry.

Anyways, in words like *dheH1-, *H1 is clearly not *&. Rather, we
might envision a true long vowel here and reconstruct *dhe:-.

In summary then, we should reconstruct *&sus, *&rudhros, *gene-
and *dhe:- instead of using *H1 everywhere like a confusing
mathematical variable. (Now, let the tomatoes fly where they may...)

gLeNny gEe
...wEbDeVEr gOne bEsErK!

email: glengordon01@...

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at