On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:29:33 +0100, P&G <
petegray@...> wrote:
>>Generally, *h2 and *h3 merged in Hittite
>
>There is a suggestion that h3 was lost postvocalic, whereas h2 survived -
>e.g. newahh ("new"). Is this right?
I don't think so. As far as I know, newahh- is not the adjective "new",
but the root of a verb meaning "to renew" (newahhi, newahti, etc.). Final
*-h2 is lost (e.g. n.pl. o-stems -a < *-h2 or *-ah2, perhaps adjectives
such as parkui < *-ih2).
There is some controversy about the fate of initial *h3- in Anatolian, and
as I recall I mainly agreed with the only thing about it specifically which
I have read, which is Jens' article "Initial h3 in Anatolian: A Vote for
Chaos", the abstract of which reads:
"Hittite h-, as in harganau, hapus-, and zero, as in utne-, ekuzi, arai-
are both compelling: IE *h3- is reflected in Hitt. as an _unstable_ h-.
Lycian epirijeti is not serious evidence."
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...