Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2008-03-13 20:55, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > I wanted to say that "Today => Nobody knows exactly the nature of
> > laryngeals...."
>
> Speak for yourself. I think we have enough evidence to reconstruct

the

> approximate pronunciation of the three laryngeals.

Really? You can?

So why you don't post here the IPA sounds for h1,h2,h3?

> > A very general remark that served to nothing.
> >
> > More General for you : we could have C3_1 + C3_2 + C_3_3 = 3 + 3

+ 1

> > = 7 distinct classes in total
> >
> > These classes are: h1 h2 h3 h1 h2 h2 h3 h1 h3 h1 h2 h3
> >
> > Now remains to choose who are the two-s against the third?
>
> If you take /t/, /z/ and /n/, for example, you can group two of

them

> against the third in three different ways: voiced /z, n/ against
> voiceless /t/, nasal /n/ against oral /t, z/ (this could also be
> sonorant vs. obstruent), or continuant /z/ against

noncontinuant /t, n/.

> All these contrasts are equally real and may be relevant as factors
> conditioning real-world sound changes. Likewise the laryngals: for

some

> purposes *h1 and *h2 may form a natural class versus *h3, which

doesn't

> mean that other groupings are excluded.
>
> > Why not all three? And why not each by its own?
>
> How funny. But yes, they also contrasted with each other. That's

why we

> reconstruct them as different phonemes. They also seem to have

formed a

> class together, all three of them.
>
> > *h1 (probably just a glottal glide) is always
> > lost.
> >
> > 1) "probably just" IS THIS SCIENCE?
>
> What's unscientific about "probably"? All science is probable (at

best

> highly probable) rather than absolutely certain.
>
> > So to resume: - "If h3..." and then - "h1 and h2 might..." and -

"if

> > h1 probably just ..." THAN => "we have a metathesis for h1/h2-t

but

> > not h3-t"
> >
> > Bravo, Piotr!
>
> Your fine irony is misdirected. I wasn't even arguing for segmental
> metathesis, so you're attacking a straw man.
>
> > Next, I refuse to consider Latin barba:tus 'a recent formation'

or 'a

> > non-dateable one' when I have Lithuanian and Slavic counterpart

all

> > of them reflecting *bHar(z)dH-eh2-to
>
> We have lots of such derivatives, some of them very recent.
>
> > As for your information: Olsen herself treats barba:tus as an old-

> > formation and proposed a 'morphological restauration'=> better to

use

> > her argumentation in this case, I think...
>
> I agree. When I say that individual -a:tus (-atU, -otas, -ed)

adjectives

> may be of any age, I don't question the antiquity of the

_formation_.

> The restoration of *-to- for *-tHo- (and a long vowel on the

analogy of

> the verb forms in question) is of course a likely explanation.
>
> > the dHeh1- inside SOLIDUS => CRIES BY ITSELF
>
> Poor *dHeh1-. Please, don't cry.
>
> Piotr
>

A long bla-bla-bla Piotr...
I have tried to count for at least 'one' solid(us) argument in all
you say above but i couldn't find anything.

Not quite a good lawyer for Mrs. Olsen :)

Marius