Re: [tied] *h3 (More deja-vu)

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>
> [...]  But I still think that does not exclude that *some* h1's were
> in fact
> not /h/ but /?/.  It would really surprise me if *all* roots
> pre-laryngeally
> reconstructed as vowel-initial (*es-, *ed- etc.) had been pronounced with
> h-.
> We know for a fact they had *h1 (witness Hitt. zero grade as-, at-,
> etc.), but
> we cannot tell which *h1's were /h/ and which were /?/ (except in those
> etyma
> where /h1/ has an aspirating effect, where we can posit /h/ with some
> confidence).

So you would like to have two sources for PIE *H1 - why only two? Surely
you are not being guided by the principle of not inventing entities you do
not need, so why stop here?

Jens