From: Miguel Carrasquer
> So, you are saying that "post-classical" studies hold that the plene writing of e-eš-zi means that we should interpret the spelling to mean that the word was pronounced /é:s-tsi/.Yes.
> Does up-to-date theory now hold that all plene spellings indicate vowel length?
>Or is the spelling immaterial?Plene spellings were used inconsistently by the Hittite
> Does that mean we should accept /e:/ as an allophone of /e/ under special conditions (+ root, +stress-accent)?Usually, [e:] is an allophone of [e], but not always.
> I have never seen *dhe:g^hóm. But that's not what Jens wrote. Jens wroteTwo rules:
> *dhég^ho:m - now *that* I saw many times in the literature. In Hittite *dh
> > t, *g^h > k, *e > e: under stress, unaccented *o: shortens regulary and
> yields /a/ and *-m# > -n. Nothing strange about it.
> Is there then some other new rule, not governed by stress-accent, which lengthens the /o/ of *dhég^hom?