Re: *d-/*H-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>

wrote:

> >
> >
> > Everyone balks at an alternation *d-/*H- such as there supposedly
> is
> > in the PIE word for "two" *dw-/*Hw-. How odd that it occurs in
> Malayo-
> > Polynesian too:
> >
> > *hipaR "opposite side of a river"
> >
> > dipag "other side, opposite side" Mansaka
> > dehipag "the opposite side of
> > a canyon or valley" Manobo
> > difar "the other side, in the sense
> > of the side facing the speaker" Tiruray
> > 'ifar "to cross over to the other side
> > (as of a river or street)"
> > se'ifar tamuk "to negotiate formally
> > the terms of a brideprice"
> > dipah "opposite bank of a river" Mukah
> > dipah "opposite bank of a river" Kayan
> (Baluy)
> > dipar "opposite side" Kelabit
> > dipah "either of the sides of a river" Uma Juman
>
> I don't see any _alternation_ here, merely what may be

unconditional

> changes. There's much more of an alternation in *English* between
> [t] and [?], which some would argue are the phonetic realisations

in

> PIE (or its earlier stages) of *d and *h1.
>

Austronesian mainly prefixes, which would make both /h-/ and /d-/
prefixes. If some root with those two prefixes in Austronesian was
loaned to (Semitic and) PIE, some might believe they saw an
alternation.

Torsten