> The 'nose' word is particularly problematic, since *h2 was basically an
> obstruent and its inherent sonority was lower than that of a nasal. In
> the sequence */nh2C/ I'd expect a syllabic nasal rather than a syllabic
> laryngeal,
There are parallels in the roots
*h3neh2 "help" [Pok 1 na: 754]
*neh2 "fear" [Pok 2 na: 754]
*mneh2 "think about" [Pok men, mna: etc 726f]
The first is interesting because of Greek forms such as oninamai (short a).
Rix suggests these are from *onna- < h3n-n-h2. Whether he's right or
wrong, we seem to have a consonantal nasal in there somewhere beside a
syllabic laryngeal.
>At any rate, *nh2es- is an unacceptable
> oddity, as far as I'm concerned.
Yes. It would be unparalleled. Laryngeals can be found at that position
only after s (eg sh2n, "bood"; sh2ews "dry") but not after anything else.
(Though this absence might be due to the difficulty of recognising an
original laryngeal there!)
Peter