> There is ample material reflecting aspirated tenues from the whole range
> of IE. The superstition that /th/ etc. is non-existent is based on nothing
> but an undignified consensus to turn a blind eye on the relevant evidence.
...
> The typological defects of PIE are mended if /th/ is added, and there are
> enough etymologies to demand this.
For /ph/ there are 5: *deph, *eph, *kapho, *k^iph, *phol
For /th/ there are 12: *kantho, *kenth, *kwenth, *math, (x2) *menth (x2)
*perth, *rek^th, *ske:th, *wieth, *wreth
For /k^h/ there is 1: *k^onkho
For /kh/ there are 4: *khakha, *makhos, *skhel, *(s)meukh
For /kwh/ there are none.
Is this "ample", and does it "demand" the reconstruction of */ph th k^h kh
kwh/?
For all of these another explanation is possible. Either:
(1) the aspirate is required by just one language, so it can be seen as a
particular development within that language (e.g. *deph), or
(2) we have the sequence CH, where the laryngeal has produced the
aspiration (e.g. *math), or
(3) it is an onomatopeoic word, (e.g. *khakha)
The only reason anyone reconstructs the *Th series is because the three-way
system */t d dh/ is so improbable. Let's not pretend it is reconstructed
for etymological reasons.
Peter