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

glen gordon wrote:

> 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.

One should be careful with adverbs like "ever". The colouring by the *K
series was inconsistent. We have well-attested roots like *s)ker-, *sek-
or *legH-, which don't show any a-colouring. It may have been a
capricious, incomplete sound change, like the lowering of Early Modern
English /u/, which took place in <butter> but not in <butcher>.

Piotr