> ===================
>
> 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
Bomhard links this PU root (*peli in Sammallahti's reconstruction)
with PIE *pel (to tremble, shake, be afraid, fearful, be frightened).
I don't see any evidence for a laryngeal in either PIE or PU. My
Proto-Indo-Uralic reconstruction would be *peli.
==============
Dear Ray,
*peli is complete junk
for two obvious reasons :
1. Hungarian has a long e: in fél
Obviously there is a laryngeal.
as obvious as Greek the:lus
is not dhel but dheH1-l.
Evidence is clear : long is not short.
2. Hungarian f is from *p
when the vowel was back.
The initial vowel was not *e
It must be either *o or *u
So a much better reconstruction
is *puh-li
Where the scheme u_i
cause ablaut e_i.
*o_i would be ä_i in Finnish
and ö_i in Hungarian.
Connection with Latin paura.
suggest that the laryngeal is glottal stop.
so my own guess is *pu?-l-i-
-i- is a frequent morpheme
to make nouns out of verbs in PU.
this is coherent with *pu?-l- being a verb.
Arnaud
===================