--- Piotr Gasiorowski <
gpiotr@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen
> <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> > Also I think it's more likely that the first h2 in
> > "duck" dissimilates to zero. There is no failure
> in *
> > h1l.ngWHros > h1.ln.gWHros > elaphros.
>
> Because in this word -- contrary to your suggestion
> -- the *n. was
> syllabic already in PIE
I never said it wasn't; in syllable * h2n.h2 I say
the first h2 dissimilated to 0 before n. > na before
h2 in the same syllable.
> (it shows up as Skt. a, Gmc.
> un, etc., despite
> the fact that the initial laryngeal is not syllabic
> in those
> branches),
This isn't what I remember and has nothing to do
with my point. I think Slavic has syl. * h2n.h2t > *
h2n:.t > h2n.t > * unt > ut (with h2 standing for x as
n. > un after a velar). Proto-Germanic * anud- is
what I remember (though for other reasons I think
there were variants *xan-xt- and *xan-xut- in PIE not
PG n. > nu here).
As far as I know Sanskrit has only a:ti- from
zero-grade * h2n.h2tih2- (do you mean you think n. > a
and this ah2 > a: with no stage with long syl. nasals?
If so I disagree).
> > This is a
> > unique or "arbitrary" dissimilation not a rule
> since *
> > h1r.h1tmom > h1.rh1.tmom > eretmon.
>
> Gk. ere is one of the developments of *-r.h1- even
> without an initial
> laryngeal.
I don't think the form of the following "laryngeal"
affects the nature of the vowel (when h is in the next
syllable) and in the same syllable rh1 > reh1 > re:
However, the rules are complicated in Greek and
vowels can change due to neighboring vowel
assimilation (whether they're from syllabic C's or
not) so I may be missing your point.
Also, are you saying there's no initial h1 in this
word or it doesn't matter?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com