Re: [tied] *gWerh3- "to devour"

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 15402
Date: 2002-09-12

I have my doubts as regards *h3 as well, but I tend to keep them for myself, since I haven't got convincing answers to some of the problems such a simplification would entail. In the case of *gWerh3-, an o-present is hard to posit. Latin vor- and Gk. bor- may well owe their /o/ to colouring is a strongly labialised environment, while Slavic *z^er-ti, Lith. gérti, Av. jaraiti are e-grade forms. Even in Greek we have some uncoloured forms such as Ion. béretHron, Arc. déretHron 'gullet'.
----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Gordon
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 5:38 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] *gWerh3- "to devour"

>The conventional reconstruction is based on the colour of the
>nil grade in Greek. *gWrH- > bro:-, so H = h3, while *gWrh2 would
>have given Gk. bra:.

If the full grade was *gWorx-, it would develop into Greek with
/-o-/ as well. However, while *gwrx- might normally become *bra:-,
would there not be a strong tendency to adopt the vowel of the
full grade despite?

Plus, I am having a hard time fitting a uvular *xW in the IE
consonant inventory. I mean, we have *x (a uvular corresponding
to *H2) which should be part of the uvular series (*K, *G, *GH).
And, just as there is a plain non-uvular counterpart for each
velar, there would be one for *x (ie: *h or *H1). The labial
varieties of *k, *g and *gH however do not appear to be uvularized
and so one would expect there not to be such a uvular labial as
*xW as one would expect to be the qualities behind *H3. So I find
myself compelled to reject *H3 and conclude that *H2 and *H3 are
the same unrounded uvular phoneme *x.

Am I mad?