Re: [tied] "Rs" in Latin/Greek/IE/etc.

> Would you say the same holds true for other dialects, such as Aeolic,
> or would you say it was always unaspirated in Aeolic?

Our information may be too scanty to give a clear answer. Furthermore,
there is a difference between vowel + rough breathing, and r + rough
breathing. The former means a sequence of /h/ + vowel and the second means
an unvoiced /r/. The unvoiced /r/ stands in contrast to the voiced /r/
which we find medially (singly) and finally).

>It seems Greek Rs were written with a mark above
> them that one book of mine denotes as an aspiration mark.

Yes. With one single exception, all initial r in Greek was written with an
aspirate mark over it (after they invented the marks!) The exception is
remarkable.

>When
> transliterated into Latin, sometimes an H was written if at the
> beginning of a word, sometimes not (risus, for example).

Risus is a Latin word (derived from rideo).
Transliteration takes a while to settle down, but the Romans were fairly
consistent in distinguishing Greek rh- from their own r-. Greek medial
double R was both described and written as voiced /r/ folowed by voiceless
/r/ - hence the writing r - rh.

> And then there's the whole matter of some placenames and proper names
> in Latin that aren't derived from Greek yet have RHs (Rhea Silvia,
> Rhoetus, Rhegium, Rhaeti, Rhenus, Rhodanus, etc.)...

The Romans introduced the rh- and -rrh- in the first century BC, and
sometimes over-corrected, especially in foreign names, e.g. Rhenus.
Rhegium is Greek, as is Rhoetus. Rhea may be affected by the Greek Rhea.

Peter