> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> > On 2008-03-15 15:01, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> > > I need to add that dHugh2te'r itself HAVING a VOCALIZED
> > > LARYNGEAL SHOWS THE ASPIRATION OF g > gh but NOT the pre-
> > > of -t-
> > This particular type of aspiration by *h2 is Indo-Iranian and not
> > (Ved. duhitá: but Gk. tHugáte:r). The pre-Indo-Aryan phonetic
> > realisation of interconsonantal *h2 must have been something like
> > since the initial syllable may "make a position" (i.e. scan as
> heavy) in
> > the RV (*dHug,hI,tá:(r) -- the commas indicate syllable
> > Similarly, we have pr.tHiví: < *pr.t,hI,wíh < *pl.th2w-íh2 (but
> > platús), etc. Your paradoxes result from confusing PIE phonetic...and don't confused the re-shaped of syllabification made by Skt.
> > processes with branch-specific ones.
> > Piotr
> Really, Piotr?
> Before to talk who confuse what : YOU NEED TO post first HERE the
> syllabification of dHugh2te'r ....and you will see who is wrong.
> P>S> But at least pLEASE Don't start with a LATER and BEFORE
> VOCALISATION OF LARYNGEALS....:)