Re: [tied] Thoughts on the existence of *H1

From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 9483
Date: 2001-09-14

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 13:55:18 -0000, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>This is a valid argument. Alas, cases of aspiration in *-Ch1-
>combinations may be accidentally difficult to find, since *h1 is
>rarer than *h2 in positions where stops might be affected. In *dHeh1-
>*dH is already aspirated, and *deh1- or *geh1- (not to mention *beh1-
>) don't seem to be attested. I'll see if any examples can be found
>(maybe before the *-h1en- suffix?).
>P.S. Here's one example that has just occurred to me: *speh1-
> 'thrive, increase', Skt. spHira- 'abundant' < *sph1-ró- (like stHita-
> < *sth2-tó-), cf. Latin prosper.

A tentative example would be Grk. <gnáthos> "chin" compared with
Armenian <cnawt>, Lith. <z^ándas>, Latv. <zôds>, where Greek has *dh
(or *tH), Armenian *d, and Baltic may have either. The "jaw, chin"
word *g^enu- is properly reconstructed as *g^enh1-u- (as shown by Skt.
compunds in <hanu:-> and Greek "metrical lengthening" of <genu-> to
<genu:->). We can reconstruct *g^nh1-d-ós > *gn@... for Greek,
*g^ónh1-d-os for Baltic, and perhaps *g^(o)nh1-d-us [> *g^(u)n@... >
*c(u)natu > cnawt] for Armenian.

>As regards Miguel's and Sergei's comments: I think syllabic *r in
>common Slavic is a secondary development, from B-Sl *ir/ur.

The argument for Common Slavic */r./ is exactly equivalent to your
argument for PIE */r./. Why would Slavic */r./ not simply continue
PIE */r./?