From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 47861
Date: 2007-03-15
>asserted
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> > On 2007-03-14 22:34, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> > > Based on what examples and based on what reasons you
> HR.HOR
> > > in PIE?
> > >
> > > When a _non_syllabic_ HRH is a good candidate too for that
> outputs
> > >
> > > This was my question from the beginning....
> >
> > Based on examples such as *h2n.h1ént > Skt. anánt (rather than
> *nant or
> > *inant) and *h1uh2ái > Skt. uvé (rather than *vé or *ivé).
> > Piotr
> >
>
> a) You try to tell me that Skt. anánt is 'the most natural possible
> output of *h2n.h1ént ?
>
> 'The most natural' should be a-ant > *a:nt- and Such forms with
> long a: really exists see: a:ni:t [3sg.impf.act.]
>
> So Both examples are constructed based on an IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE
> TO DENY SUPPOSITION:vocalized
> "The hiatus that appeared is filled 'exactly' with the missing
> phonem: n or w"
> True or not : you cannot say that this is a general linguistic
> rule...this could be POSSIBLE.
>
>
> b) Next:
> *h2nh1-ent- could have been analogically reshaped to
> *h2enh1-ent- > anánt
> (based on *h2enh1-ti)
>
> see similary:
> *h2rg^-nt-o > *h2erg^-nt-o > *h2reg^-nt-o > (H)rajatá- 'silver-
> coloured'
>
>
> B. Next I need to follow here Miguel with his counter-example:
>
> 1. On one hand we have PIE *str.h3t'os > Grk. stro:t'os
> so PIE *R.h3 > Grk.*Ro:
>
> 2. On the other hand PIE *h3nh3mn. > Grk. onoma so h3 is
> here (h3>o) and not the R (see n=n)word
>
>
> Finally 'my feeling' is the following : we can have cases when
> HRH > HR.H but also we can have cases when Not, depending on the
> structure...so the final clue will be Latin.Sorry please read (was due to copy/paste):
>
> Marius
>
> b) Next:
> *h2nh1-ent- could have been analogically reshaped to
> *h2enh1-ent- > anánt
> (based on *h2enh1-ti)