Re: [tied] Re: Indo-European /a/

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 04:18:07 +0000, etherman23
<etherman23@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <G&P@...> wrote:
>> I'm not sure which theory you mean here. Have you moved form PIE /a/
>> to laryngeal theory? Because, if you are doubting the existence of
>> laryngeals, we need a conversation.
>
>I'm convinced H2 existed (though I question some of its alleged
>properties). I see nothing to convince me of H1. It doesn't appear in
>Hittite that I can see (except oddly, mehur).

mehur is *me:h2wr. *h1 is never observed in Hittite (or
Anatolian in general).

> Nor am I convinced of H3,
>but I'm more likely to believe in that than H1. The theory is elegant,
>I'll give you that. But where's the beef?

The best evidence for *h1 is still the Ablaut e: ~ o: < *eh1
~ *oh1, as first noted by de Saussure.

Important support also comes from the Greek three-way
representation of vocalized laryngeals, with *h1 > *&1 >
/e/.

Greek also shows a different development of *i/u + *h1/2/3,
having:

*ih1 > i: *uh1 > u:
*ih2 > ya: *uh2 > wa:
*ih3 > yo: *uh3 > wo:

Plenty of evidence, I'd say.

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