--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> > c) to come back to *h1rh1-o:m-eh2 we have the same thing : the
h1
> > CANNOT TRIGERRED ANY VOCALISATION OF R
>
> It functioned as an obstruent consonant in PIE, so a resonant
flanked by
> two *h1's was _syllabic_ in PIE. It was vocalised later in
> branch-specific ways.
>
I. _syllabic_ resonant existed in PIE for sure.
Don't need to tell me this.
In the same time _non_syllabic_resonants existed too.
In these conditions I have asked you:
Based on what examples and based on what reasons you asserted HR.H
in PIE?
When a _non_syllabic_ HRH is a good candidate too for that outputs
This was my question from the beginning....
II. Let's suppose now (for the argumentation) a vocalic HR.H in
PIE
Next viewing that:
1) is vocalised later in branch-specific ways
but in Addition not only this BUT
2) is vocalised in many specific contextual ways (see Skt.
different outputs for CRC, CRHV-, -VRC/# etc..) (=> so many
contextual ways, if you compare with other PIE phonems, that this
really put in question you supposed PIE _syllabicity_ for some
contexts, but doesn't matter for the case II.)
So viewing 1 and 2
Based on what you put together and deduce the "same output" for
Latins RRHV CRHV CRRV versus Latin HRHV? This was your assumption
(not mine) so you need to sustain it as well.
Best Regards,
Marius
P.S.: I do not agree also with others of your remarks, but
everything derived from the I and II above