Re: [tied] pibeti

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> On 04-10-14 04:09, etherman23 wrote:
>
> > *pibeti is an often discuss word because of the *b where a *p is
> > expected. However that's not the point of this posting. This is a
> > reduplicated form of *po:. According to the laryngeal theory this
> > should be reconstructed as *peH3. The reduplicated form would

then be

> > *pipH3-eti. However this should result in **pipoti. Again,

ignoring

> > the issue of *b, why do we have an *e attested instead of *o?
>
> Because morphological transparency took precedence over regular
> phonetic processes and the value of the thematic vowel was
> analogically restored (or the colouring was blocked in the first
> place).

Is this something that happened in PIE or independently in the
daughter languages? Since the laryngeals develop differently in the
daughter languages I would assume the restoration of *e occured post-
break up. But if that's the case then is it reasonable that such
analogical effects took place in all the languages where the word is
attested?