Re: [tied] Re: Ie. *laywos/leh2iwos (was: ka and k^a)

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 40756
Date: 2005-09-27

----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 4:55 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Ie. *laywos/leh2iwos (was: ka and k^a)


>
> > >
> > >Would your new rule be able to rescue Sanskrit 'ambu-' "water"
> for
> > >the family of *Hap- "water" (< PIE *xamb- ?). Cf Gr.
> omphax "ripe
> > >grape"
> >
> > No, the a- is explained well enough by *h2-[*],
>
> Only if you assume *h2e-; if /a/ is preserved, rather than produced
> by h2 there's nothing wrong in *h2aN-.
>
>
> >and my rule
> > does not concern itself with labial stops, nor does it offer
> > carte blanche to mix up the reflexes of *b, *bh and *p.
>
> I know I'd have to obtain that carte blache elsewhere, namely by
> assuming the root is loaned.
>
>
> Torsten

***
Patrick:

That is certainly my position.

*Han- > *a:n-, therefore exempt from *e/*a/*o > *A(blaut phoneme); later,
*a:n- > *an-.

***