--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:
>
> Miguel we are talking here about ASPIRATION
>
> dHugh2ter shows an ASPIRATED g > gh (see duhitar) DUE to a
> VOCALIZED h2
>
> ph2ter don't show any pre-aspirated -t- due to a VOCALIZED h2 =>
> let's be clear.
>
> Olsen theory is a mistake.
>
> Marius
I need to add that dHugh2te'r itself HAVING a VOCALIZED
LARYNGEAL SHOWS THE ASPIRATION OF g > gh but NOT the pre-aspiration
of -t-
And the accent is on -te'r to finalize regarding your supposition
too.
This single word shows us the following things:
a) the VOCALIZED LARYNGEAL HAS ASPIRATION PROPERTIES TOO g/h2. >
gh => as result Olsen, you and nobody else CANNOT INVOKE from now on
that a 'vocalized laryngeal cannot trigger aspiration/pre-aspiration'
=> so Olsen supposition regarding the distinction between h./h in
relation with her theory is false
b) the accent of dHugh2te'r is on -t'er and their is no metathesis
h-t>t-h => so you assumption is wrong too regarding you trial to save
somehow the Olsen's theory
Marius