Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Ryan
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 8:47 PM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: Re: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too


I thought you said Meillet used <°> for a reduced *e not a laryngeal; and
some other sign for the vocalic residue of the 'laryngeal'.

Are you changing that?

Patrick

====================
As far as I'm considered
a laryngeal (whichever H123) is a consonant,
it *never* surfaces as a vowel.
the reason why I reject the wording
"vocalized laryngeal"
I suppose It means H > v
I believe °H > v

Meillet was half way from
non-laryngealist epoch
to standard PIE.

The main point is I believe
(As Meillet did)
there is an unstressed vowel /°/
which is a phoneme contrasting
with /e/ and /o/
which has nothing to do
with laryngeals.

Arnaud
=================


----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 6:31 PM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too
>
>
> pH2-ter and dhu-gH2-ter
>
> What is the problem?
>
> Patrick
>
> ==========
> There are two problems :
>
> Father is probably *p°-ter
> with no laryngeal at all.
>
> Daughter is *dhugh2°-ter
>
> Apart from that,
> These words are not clearly PIE-stage,
> as they have no reflex at all in Anatolian,
> And quite obviously even fewer reflexes
> in Yenissei or North caucasic.
>
> Arnaud
> ================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>