Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:55:09 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
>wrote:
>
>> In Baltic we have Lith. baidýti vs. Latv. bai~dy^t, of which
>> the first appears to reflect *bai~d- with circumflex
>> diphthong (perhaps from original *bhoh2i-dh(h1)- > *bo:id- >
>> bai~d-), and the second *baíd- (< *bhoih2-dh(h1)-) with
>> acute diphthong (if Pokorny's Latvian data is correct).
>>
>> =======================
>> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>> miguelc@...
>
>Miguel, what is the base to assert h2 here in place of an unknown h

I think I already mentioned that (from LIV): *h2
because of CLuw. pi:ha-, Lyc. piXe- "fear" < *bhéih2-os. *h1
does not give Anatolian /x/. Theoretically, it could be *h3,
which sometimes gives /x/ and sometimes doesn't (opinions
differ), but is much rarer than *h2 in any case.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...