--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Wordingham<mailto:richard@...>
> First, I notice you have written *gHWen- rather than Pokorny's
gWhen-; is there any significance to this different spelling?
None. To me, PIE *gHW or *gWH is an indivisible unit, voiced with
some sort of labial articulation. I am not taking a position on
whether it is 'aspirated'; I prefer to stick to the standard
orthography in so far as it correctly indicates the phonemic make-up
of words and as far as ASCII permits.
Except when I am being careless, 'h' as opposed to 'H' would indicate
a laryngeal.
To some extent I have written *gHW because of the claim that Nostratic
velars and labialised velars could have a different effect on a
following vowel in Semitic reflexes, whereas the phonation does not
affect other segments.
> There is a point to this question. In my system, I propose that
*gW = S but that PIE *gh = PAA *g.
> I have regarded the initial of this word as a subcategory of *gW,
and hence the word cognate with Egyptian Xn (bar-h), 'row'; but if the
initial is a subcategory of *gh, namely *gh with a w-glide, it could
correspond with Egyptian xn (hook-h), 'direct one's hand against, beat
(time)'.
PIE *gHW is *not* the same as *gHw, though there are languages whose
only syllable-initial clusters have /w/ as the second element,
predominantly with initial velars.
Richard.