Re: *o:w(a:), egg(s)

----- Original Message -----

From: Rick McCallister

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:36 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] *o:w(a:), egg(s)

Are you looking at a reduplicated form?

< **waH-

If so, are there any proposed non-IE cognates to
validate this?

--- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@ msn.com> wrote:

> I am addressing this question to those on the list
> who especially are interested in (P)IE phonology.
>
> I am led, by various considerations, to hypothesize
> that the earliest form behind *o:u(a:), egg, was
>
> *wawaH(a)
>
> With suppression of the laryngeal, this would become
> *wawa:
>
> With the stress-accent, this would become *wowá:
>
> To prevent a series of two identical consonants, the
> initial *w would be dropped, causing compensatory
> lengthening in the initial vowel: *o:wa:
>
> I am therefore proposing that in this word, the
> exception to the rule, the initial phone was a vowel
> rather than a consonant, here a laryngeal (like the,
> IMHO, mythical *H3).
>
> Does this sequence of development make any sense at
> all in terms of PIE phonology?
>
> I am not proposing to argue the case for this only
> to get interested comments.
>
>
> Patrick
>

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ