Re: [tied] Laryngeal theory as an unnatural

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:10:44 +0000, "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>Miguel's "nasal" rule:
>>This might explain a number of words such as Pokorny's *dha(m)b(h)-,
>>*g^hans-, *la(m)b(h)- [2x], *mad-, *mag^h-,
>>*mag^-, *mand-, *man-us, *marko-, *matH-, *mat-, *mazdo-, *nant-,
>>*nas-, *pando-, *pank-/*pang-, *sal- (if *sa(m)-l-), *tap-
>>(*tap-n-, *wank^-.
>
>This nasal rule stinks. If *men- exists, obviously *m- cannot
>serve as the trigger of this rule... so what nasal as affected
>the vowel??? It's crap.

The rule does not apply to *men-. It applies to *mo(n)- > *ma(n)-.
The handful attested cases of PIE *mo- can be explained as *mwe- >
*mo- (as Latin molo: "to grind" < *mwelo:, Grk. mule:). The rest has
*ma-.

>On the other hand, here again, we might solve this with
>laryngeals, particularly syllabic laryngeals that have been
>vocalized into vowels (ie: *h1 > *e, *h2 > *a, *h3 > *o).
>For example, *mad- might be a zero-graded form of **mVxd- or
>*mxVd-.

No way, because of Sanskrit mádati/-te: (and mándati). The only
laryngeal solution would be full-grade *mh2ad-.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...