Piotr:
> Also, the strong cases in Indo-Iranian have *a:
> (Ved. nom.pl. a:pas, Av. acc.sg. a:pm), which
> looks like a Brugmannian lengthening of *o, so we
> should reconstruct *h2ó:p-s, nom.pl. *h2op-es,
> acc.sg. *h2op-m., gen.sg. *h2ap-ós, with the same
> apophony as in *pod-/*ped-. All this points to
> *h2a- < **h2e- in this word.
Yes, fun stuff :)
This is why we should alleviate this phone[m/t]ic
confusion by writing *h2e, not *h2a. Afterall, if the
apophony is patterned the same way as *pod-/*ped-,
then clearly the phoneme is *e in genitive _*h2ep-ós_.
We can plainly see that if *e is ever next to the
"marked" class (*h2, *q, *G, *GH) that we should
pronounce it as /A/ anyways. And who says that
coloured *e is the same vowel as non-coloured *a?
I don't. Food for thought.
= gLeN
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com