From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 35203
Date: 2004-11-26
>Yes, as in all Anatolian. *h1 is never reflected as <h>.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Miguel Carrasquer<mailto:mcv@...>
>
>> See the discussion of this word in Melchert, "Anatolian
>> Historical Phonology", p. 78. Briefly:
>
> I do not have ready access to Melchert so I would like to ask a clarifying question or two:
>
> according to him, medial *h1 simply disappears in Palaic?
> How about *h3? Would *h2ah3 yield Palaic ha:- or ha:- according to Melchert in Palaic?*h3 would also disappear in this position (intervocalically,
>> Whether the second laryngeal is *h1 or *h3 is undecidable.That's what Melchert says: "With our present knowledge
>> 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).
>
> So, unless someone has yet other arguments, *h2ah1 is a misleading reconstruction for
> proper *h2ah1/h3? Would you not agree?