Re: [tied] Re: vulgar Latin?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: vulgar Latin?



>> [Glen:] Erh, are you sure it's not *xap-? Did laryngeals already die out in Indo-Iranian?

> [Miguel:] LaryngealS (pl.) had died out. Perhaps the reflex of a single merged laryngeal remained (see e.g. Beekes' Avestan grammar, where he reconstructs phonemic /?/ in hiatus [altough you can have hiatus without gllottal stop]). The pronunciation of this single laryngeal is highly unlikely to have been a voiceless velar (or uvular) fricative.

I'd vote for a glottal glide [h], as in English. It accounts best for the Indo-Iranian voiceless aspirates from stops plus *h2. Whatever the reflex was, it was sufficiently consonantal to influence syllable-division and block Brugmannian lengthening in *gWe-gWom-h2a > jagama versus *gWe-gWom-e > jaga:ma.

Piotr