From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 54609
Date: 2008-03-04
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:48 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [tied] PIE 'inflected' Compounds
> At 8:46:00 PM on Monday, March 3, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <miguelc@...>
>
> >> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:41:01 -0600, "Patrick Ryan"
> >> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >>> I have yet to understand why you prefer *H2 rather than
> >>> *H1 or *H3
<snip>
> 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.
>
> Brian
***
Thank you, Brian, for attempting to explain Miguel's argument (is it his
last version?).
I reconstruct the root as *bhó:(H)i-.
Therefore, the root listed in LIV, *bhéiH2-os is either a different root
altogether, or a metathesis from *bho:(H)i-.
Whether *H2 has been correctly reconstructed or not for the LIV root, it is
an unwarranted assumption to suppose that *bhó:(H)i- should be emended to
**bhóH2i-.
Patrick