From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 47823
Date: 2007-03-14
>right.
> On 2007-03-14 00:37, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > I will start with the 'worst thing': No. Piotr, you are not
> >metathesis
> > The (H)RHV- roots are ones of the most problematic PIE roots:
> ...
> > For the (H)RHV-sequences (initial position) the outputs are:
> > a) the H is simply lost
> > b) the laryngeal H will be subject of the laryngeal-
> >rVH-?
> > If you know some contra-examples please post them here...
>
> Laryngeal metathesis in *(C)rHV- sequences?? What do you mean? *(C)
> No such thing is attested. The PIE resonant was normally syllabicin
> such sequences, and after the loss of the laryngeal the outcomewas
> phoneticaly *(C)r.rV- or *(C)&rV- (the difference is largely amatter of
> a given author's favoured notation). The further development ishirá: 'vein'),
> branch-specific. Cf. Lat. haru-(spex) < *g^Hr.H-u- (Skt.
> Skt. giráti, Slavic *z^IroN < *gWr.h3-é/ó- 'devour', Lat.varus 'pimple'
> < *wr.H-o- (Lith. viras 'tapeworm cyst').************
>
> Piotr