The stress-accent is a big hint here.
It is, of course, not impossible that if
1) *H3 actually existed,
2) in some language, sometime, somewhere *H3 could replace it, or
3) vice versa.
4) But, in the first place, the type of replacement you mention below where
5) *m is possibly denasalized to *w is much more likely.
6) For likelood, analyze the features:
7) *m, labial nasal, more easily becomes *w, labial fricative, or *b, labial
stop;
all have one feature in common.
8) *m, labial nasal to *H3, pharyngal/laryngal fricative - no features in
common - rather unlikely; and
9) in any case, _not_ illustrated by your example which is possibly the
garden variety of denasalization which presumably is what happened to Basque
*M.
10) About as likely as *?m/*m? is unlikely as a phoneme.
Patrick
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: PIE -*C-presents
> It must be tómos or tomós if you wish to make a point of some kind.
>
> ========
>
> I'm talking about the Greek words like tómos
> that have passive meaning instead of active.
>
> Your opinion that H3 is not m?
> does not account
> for Indo-Iranian mant
> being a variant of wont
> My theory explains that
> mant is from ?mont with loss of ?
> wont is from m?ont with m? > w.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ==============
>
>
>