From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 45268
Date: 2006-07-06
>Miguel said:There's nothing obscure about /a/ in the neighbourhood of
>
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:13:07 +0200, Mate Kapovic
><mkapovic@...> wrote:
>
>>How do you explain possible Hirt's Law in bo´´lto? Shouldn't it be the same as in <golv'a?
>
><I'm glad you asked.
>
><*gal@... may have /a/. I would put Hirt's law before
><Winter's law, and Winter's law still distinguishes between
></a/ and /o/, so Hirt's law may work differently for *oRH vs.
><*arH.
>
><The rule also doesn't seem to apply to *a and *o from *e
><after *h2 and *h3: Latv. ar^t < *h2ar@3téi and ar^kls <
><*h2ar@3tlóm, aûst < *h2au@... (I don't have any actual
><examples for *h3e-). Whether it applies in the case of
><"unmotivated" /a/ (not in the neighbourhood of *h2, *k, *g,
><*gh) is unclear: dê"verI (*daiHwé:r) and its Baltic cognates
><would seem to suggest it does, but Latv. sal^t (*k^al@-téi)
><suggests it doesn't.
>
>Ah PIE *a... I'm sorry, but that's just obscurum per obscurius.
>I am very reluctant to accept an explanation involving PIE *a...