From: etherman23
Message: 54675
Date: 2008-03-05
>Bomhard links this PU root (*peli in Sammallahti's reconstruction)
>
> >>> 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