On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:32:46 -0600, Patrick Ryan
<
proto-language@...> wrote:
> Let me state, before I ask a few more questions, that I have no point I am advancing (except possibly that the initial laryngeal might cause simultaneously a-coloration AND length).
>
> 1) In Hittite ha:ssa, do you connect the gemination with the final laryngeal?
Yes.
> 2) Why can we not be consistent? Isn't *h2eh1[/3{s}] to be taken as equivalent to *h2ah1?
>
> 3) Aside from length [*a:], what reasons (if any) prompt the reconstruction of the second laryngeal?
The length in Hittite is not caused by any laryngeal. It is
the normal lengthening of a stressed vowel.
> 4) Would you absolutely rule out a possible reduplication: *h2ah2[a]? I guess your answer is below. What would you expect the Palaic form to be if *h2 were the second laryngeal?
ha:h-
See the discussion of this word in Melchert, "Anatolian
Historical Phonology", p. 78. Briefly:
Hitt. há:ssa- must go back to H(e/o)Hs- (there is no other
way to explain -ss- here than through -Hs-).
Latin a:ra must go back to HeH2s- or H2eHs, i.e. one of the
two laryngeals must be *h2.
If the Hittite and Latin words are related to Palaic ha:-,
then the second laryngeal cannot be *h2, therefore the first
laryngeal must be *h2.
We now have: *h2eh(1/3)s-.
Whether the second laryngeal is *h1 or *h3 is undecidable.
If it is *h3, it would mean that *h2 takes precedence over
*h3 (Lat. a:ra), or that the 1st laryngeal takes precedence
over the 2nd. Overall, my opinion is that it's more likely
that the second laryngeal is *h1 (and the colouring of *h2
takes precedence over *h1, which causes no colouring, as can
also be seen in the Slavic f. ins. sg. ending *-oyh2eh1 >
-oja: + m > -ojoN).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...