Rule-1:
"A laryngeal was lost as the second of four contiguous consonants in
internal syllables : PIE *-CHCC- > -CCC-"
a Similar Example to our topic that I could identified is that one of:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*werh1- 'to speak'
> *werh1-dHh1- [-CHCC- > -CCC-]
> *wer-dHh1-
> Latin verbum /werbum/ etc..)
and of course that this rule explain our word in discussion
-----------------------------------------------------------
*bHeyh- 'to fear' > *bHoyh-dHh1- [-CHCC- > -CCC-] >
> *bHoy-dHh1- > Lith. baidyti
A. This rule is postulated by:
Hackstein in "Historische Sprachforschung 115 [2002]"
----------------------------------------------------------
(I don't have the book so I ask if somebody have it to post all the
examples there (thanks): the classical example is that one related to
*dHugh2ter)
B. Haug rejects the idea in a Review:
----------------------------------------------------------
"P. 156 (and note 12): the author refers to his idea that a laryngeal
disappeared in Indo-European when it was the second of four
consonants, i.e. *CHCC > *CCC. In this case, one would like to see a
discussion of -dhro- and -tro- derivations from set-roots, which
always seem to show a reflex of the laryngeal. In some cases, this
can be analogical from the corresponding verb (in much the same way
that Latin aratrum has its long a from the verb arare), but in other
cases such an explanation seems impossible, e.g. for Armenian
arawr 'plough': this suffix is not productive in Armenian, which in
any case does not have a corresponding verb *aram, so it should
rather be taken as the direct phonetic continuant of IE *h2erh3-trom
with the laryngeal intact"
C. Hackstein replies in an answer to that review - see below:
----------------------------------------------------------
"II.6. ad Hackstein SHE p. 156 note 12: Haug rejects the idea that a
laryngeal was lost as the second of four contiguous consonants in
internal syllables (i.e. PIE *-CHCC- > -CCC-, as posited in
Historische Sprachforschung 115 [2002], 1-22 on the strength of
numerous examples, passed over by Haug in silence). He submits that
*dhro- and *tro-derivatives of set-roots preserve the laryngeal, but
the picture is by far not as unequivocal as Haug would have us
believe: one has to consider the possibility of thematic formants *-e-
dhro-, *-e-tro-, cf. SHE p. 226 on berethron; moreover, he withholds
the concluding remarks on p. 19 (op. cit.) where (explicitly
addressing tro-formations) I hinted at the possibility of analogy,
referring to Latin aratrum, which owes its medial long vowel to the
influence of arare. As for Armenian arawr, Haug considers an
analogical restoration of the laryngeal "impossible", because (1) the
suffix -tro- is not productive in Armenian, and (2) there is no
corresponding verb *aram. Since, however, the rule posited (*-CHCC-
> -CCC-) is of Proto-Indo-European date [Note-5] one has to reckon
with early restorations as well, which reduces the significance of
the loss of a verbal paradigm of *ara- in Proto-Armenian.
"
"Note-5: See Historische Sprachforschung 115, 1ff passim, and cf. the
early assimilation of PIE *-g-t- > *-k-t- as implied by -s- in
Armenian dowstr"
So the contra-examples is that one of:
Armenian arawr 'plough' < IE *h2erh3-trom
BUT
Hackstein posits its rule "on the strength of numerous examples"
So please to post all his examples
Thanks,
Marius