--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> > On 2007-03-14 13:26, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> > > As I know Piotr, Sanskrit n. > a see *h2nh2-ti >
a:ti 'aquatic
> bird'
> > > I don't see the vocalisation of n. in your example...
> >
> > The prevocalic development was different: *n.HV > *n.nV > Indic
> anV, cf.
> > *tn.h2ú- > tanú- 'thin'. Similarly, *r. and *l normally give Skt
> r., but
> > *r.HV/*l.HV > irV (or urV in labial environments), cf. *pl.h1ú- >
> purú-
> > (Av. pouru-, Gk. polú-).
> >
> > Piotr
> >
>
>
> Piotr, you try to tell me that the output of Skt n. is either a or
an?
>
> This is not true: the output of the Skt. n.,m. is Only a
>
> So when you say that the :
>
> "pre-vocalic development was different n.HV > n.nV"
> I can agree with you.
>
> But this is Only just 'another way' to explain A Different output
> (versus the 'normal' a) and Once You are Defining 2 outputs for the
> same Vocalisation Process that initially you presented me as "One
and
> the Same Process":
>
> you come "closer" to my initial assumption...
>
> So what you say is equivalent 'somehow' with what I'm saying :
>
> "there is NO vocalisation of the resonant in HRHV clusters because
I
> can see as you can see also that the n is well and safe there"
>
> Marius
>
I don't know if I could well present my point (with my English)=>
To rsume: there are 2 points to clarify here:
1. Who really trigger the vocalisation of the Resonants and who
doesn't.
2. Who cannot trigger the vocalization of resonants but can
influences the value of the resulting output
My argument:
The fact that in *tnh2-u we don't have the same output with *h2nh2-
ti clearly indicates that the Laryngeal Has No Role To Trigger your
Supposed Vocalisation of R, otherwise the output would be the same
(if the laryngeal would have been the Role as "That one that
closes/defines the Context".
a) so in h2nh2-ti the vocalisation n. > a is trigerred by -t- NOT
by h2 and once we said this, we will logically complete that
b) in tnh2-ú there is NO Vocalisation of n because the Required
Context is not there ...
=> once we agree that h2 has no Role to Trigger a R-vocalization:
b) the value of the output nh2/V > an etc.. is secondary in this
discussion: the main point is that: THE LARYNGEAL CANNOT TRIGGER BY
ITS-SELF THE VOCALISATION OF THE RESONANT (IT CAN ONLY INFLUENCE THE
VALUE OF THE OUTPUT)
c) to come back to *h1rh1-o:m-eh2 we have the same thing : the h1
CANNOT TRIGERRED ANY VOCALISATION OF R
d) Finally regarding the Latin output of HrH/V => you need to show
me another example HrH/V- in Latin before to trust you that:
Latin ro: < PIE h1rh1-o: (Ro:ma < *h1rh1-o:m-eh2 ) is not possible
in Latin.
Best Regards,
Marius
P.S. Constructions like RHV > R.RV quoted on different books ... have
Only the value of a Formula (But it's a confusing model, at least
this is my opinion)