--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:
> >It is not a priori excluded that some IE language shows a
difference
> >continuing a difference of vowel timbre in original /H3e/ as
opposed to
> >plain /o/.
>
> Perhaps I forget, Jens, or misunderstood. Didn't you object to
this
> difference in your discussions with me over Brugmann's Law?
Yes, I did find it extremely hard to believe, but I could have
been wrong. Indications I have to go by are rather to the contrary,
but I am not unable to specify the details under which the theory so
intensely loved by others on this list could be correct just by
chance. It takes the odd situation that most of the evidence adduced
in its favour is irrelevant, but the conclusion is correct for other
reasons.
If ávi-s/áv-y-as 'sheep' is *H2ów-i-s/*H2aw-y-ós, it is not evidence
for *H3e.
If ánas- 'burden, load' is from *H3én-os, it *is* evidence; but not
if it is *H3énH2-os. None of you has bothered to check that matter,
in fact it seems to be a set-root: *H3enH2- (full treatment
forthcoming by Birgit Olsen).
If ápas- 'work' is *H3ép-os, that *is* evidence, but not if it
*H3épH-os. Here you have stronger position because /pH2/ should have
left aspiration, and /pH3/ would have regularly produced /b/;
still, /pH1/ is not *known* to have given anything other than wat we
have here. Nor, however, is it known to have given what we *do*
find. So this is on the brink of being good evidence in favour of
your position. Again, it seems not even to have been addressed as a
matter of interest that we should make sure that the syllable is
really open even when laryngeals are reconstructed in their right
places.
If the Skt. present stem styá:ya- 'become compact' (middle voice) is
genuine (we have Pa:nini's word for it, textual attestation being
limited to one unaccented occurrence), it can be fully regular only
as *stiH3-éye-. In that case the long /-á:ya-/ can only be
from /H3e/ in an open syllable. People of ill will go out of their
way to ban this etymology to damnation, and perhaps they are right;
but they have no way of knowing.
I find it unjustified to defend the "claim" in its original
formulation, for that formulation was made without knowledge of
laryngeals. It will therefore be completely fortuitous if the truth
about the matter under discussion turns out to fit the presumed
claim. Theoretically the chances are 50%.
Jens