>>> I have yet to understand why you prefer *H2 rather than
>>> *H1 or *H3
<
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/54371>
The root which Pokorny gives as *bho:i- ~ *bh&i- ~ *bhi:-
"sich fürchten", corresponds to LIV (p. 72) *bheih2- (*h2
because of CLuw. pi:ha-, Lyc. piXe- "fear" < *bhéih2-os).
<
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/54382>
> 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.
Brian
===================
It's not that much obvious that H is H2.
I don't believe Anatolian h is a proof
H1 also leaves traces.
Now Uralic words/roots like
Finnish pel and puol- "fear/afraid"
and Hungarian fél (long e:) are
Coherent with a proto-form
like *puH1-t? and *poH1-t?-
Starting with a velar voiced H2.8,
the result should be Finnish
**pajl or **pojl
H2 is not at all clear.
Another point is the -d-
in Lit bai~das seems to be from
-t?- not from -dh-
None of you has dealt with the
status of -d- < d / t? / dh ??
I see no reason to assume -dh-
let alone -dh-H1-
Arnaud
=================