Re: [tied] Re: Slavic *-je/o

On 2006-09-06 10:37, Sergejus Tarasovas wrote:

> The question arises, then, how many PIE roots containing such
> diphthongs we know at all where the laryngeal isn't compulsary. Eg.,
> the index to LIV2 contains no Baltic and Slavic reflexes of such roots.
> If they don't reconstruct laryngeals sine necessitate, then such roots
> must be very rare. And if they, not being laryngeal purists at all, are
> guilty of overusing laryngeals, how does one tell the cases where a non-
> initial laryngeal inside or on the flanks of the diphthong (*HaW, *aHw,
> *awH) is a must from those where it can be avoided (provided that the
> evidence of Balto-Slavic prosody is ignored)? What would that be -- the
> (non)existance of (the refelexes of) vocalizations, anything else?

One would expect Skt. -avi- and presumably a Gk. reflex of disyllabic
-a[w]&- for preconsonantal *-auh- (no such thing in kaulós). Traces of
contraction in *-ah2u-, *-ah2i- should be visible in some branches. If
we forget about BSl. prosody for the sake of the argument, what (apart
from a dogmatically anti-*a attitude) should force us to reconstruct a
laryngeal in words like *kaulo-, *kaiko- *daiwer-, laiwo-, gHaido-, etc.?

Piotr