--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<miguelc@...> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:03:50 +0100, 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-
aspiration
> >> of -t-
> >
> >This particular type of aspiration by *h2 is Indo-Iranian and not
PIE
> >(Ved. duhitá: but Gk. tHugáte:r). The pre-Indo-Aryan phonetic
> >realisation of interconsonantal *h2 must have been something like *
[hI],
> >since the initial syllable may "make a position" (i.e. scan as
heavy) in
> >the RV (*dHug,hI,tá:(r) -- the commas indicate syllable
boundaries).
>
> OK, that explains it then.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> miguelc@...
The aspiration of gh2 > gHh2 in dHugh2ster preceeded Any Other
Particular Indo-Iranian Sound Law so it belongs to Dialectal PIE
times when the laryngeals were preserved...
You cannot show any particular Indo-Iranian Sound Law
that preceeded g/h2. > gH in dHugh2ter...
This ensure 'at least' a Dialectal PIE period (and if you linked
this that you cannot account for some PIE dialects due to the loss of
the aspiration in that dialects (Balto-Slavic) you can easy arrived
even earlier)
(the laryngeals survive even later in Indo-Iranian -> see Bartolomae
Law that didn't happens in the presence of a laryngeal, Grassman Law
that make distinction between a laryngeal and a non-laryngeal
context etc...)
So the aspirated gH- ( from the ancient aspiration g/h2.) trigerred
the resyllabification of /-hi-/ not vice-versus
The original PIE syllabification was /dHu-g&x-ter/ and there is no
reason to make a distinction for a non-vocalized laryngeal versus a
vocalized one (when the syllabification of laryngeal was done adding
a prop. Vowel) => for a supposed metatheis x-t > t-x (that didn't
exist at all).
Marius