Re: *a/*a: ablaut

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 5:29 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: *a/*a: ablaut


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

> I do not understand why <bhájati> needs to be reconstructed as *bho-
rather
> than *bhe-.
>
> More coloring?
>
> Why would a palatal <j> color anything to [a]?
>
> 'g'-coloring is a real 'slippery slope'.

Because in *bHag the *g is a back or low velar - the softening to /j/
is by the law of palatals, which might conceivably be as late as Indic.

Richard.

***

Richard, sorry, I just do noit see it.

Let us assume that <g> was palatalized by the <e> of the connective vowel.

Let us assume that before palatalization, it was a back or low velar.

Piotr was talking about adjacent velars backing <e> to <a> not to <o>.

Did I misunderstand?


Patrick