Re: [tied] Re: Bader's article on *-os(y)o

On Wed, 19 May 2004 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT),
enlil@... wrote:

>> For the thematic NA dual, *-oh3 is the only possibility if we
>> take the thematic vowel rule seriously: *h1 and *h2 are
>> voiceless, so they would have given *-eh1 > -e: and *-eh2 >
>> -a:. Only *h3 could have given -o: (both by its colouring
>> effect and by its voicedness).
>
>Again, more assumptions built on more assumptions built on more
>assumptions. A house of cards.
>
>You *assume* that *-o:- is *-eh3- and therefore to keep this
>fantasy alive, you then assume that *h3 must surely be voiced

No, it doesn't _have_ to. Even if *h3 was voiceless, we'd
have:

*-eh1 > -e:
*-eh2 > -a:
*-eh3 > -o:

It's *h3 either way. That's the beauty of it.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...