Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

On 2008-03-16 11:15, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> I don't misunderstood it: I refuse to trust that a supposed (non-
> existing) pre-aspiration could have been different based on a kind of
> vocalized x or based on a on-vocalized one.
>
> WHEN
> 1. the vocalisation of laryngeal was done with a prop. vowel =>
> otherwise why we have vowels everywhere as later result of this
> vocalisation?

Not everywhere. In quite a few branches "laryngeal schwas" were simply
lost (while "schwa secundum" wasn't). Then, syllabic consonants may
undergo vocalisation directly, without any prop vowels. For example, if
there had been prop vowels accompanying syllabic nasals in Greek,
Indo-Iranian or Albanian, the outcome would have been something else
than just /a/. There are numerous examples of changes like [l.] > [u].
And of course there are extant languages (including a few IE ones) with
syllabic consonants not accompanied by prop vowels.

> 2. the single position where this prop. vowel can be inserted in
> the specify contexts was BEFORE the laryngeal /p&x-/ Becuase px&- has
> an impossibel syllabification

And you know it all via divine revelation, I suppose. Why should *px&-
(or just *px.-) have ben impossible? I have to warn you that you are
speaking to a native speaker of a language where pxV- (_and_ even pxC-)
is perfectly possible.

> 3. The prop. vowel account also for Latin 'four' (and for
> Albanian ;four' too (see Eric Hamp) kWtr > kWVtr- so this was a
> largely used instrument in PIE
>
> => so don't continue to tell stories here about vocalisations of
> the 'boshiman' languages, 'retard' etc...

What the hell is a "boshiman" language?

> You can talk about 'failures' ONLY after you will propose a valid
> syllabification for dHugh2ter and ph2ter
>
> Since seems that you are not able to propose something else
> coherent against /p&x-ter/ and /dHu-g&x-ter/
>
> => nobody can see based on what you are talking about here 'failures'

I'm afraid that you are the only person on the list who can't see what
I'm talking about. None so blind... etc. The PIE syllabification of the
words above was *ph2,ter- and *dHu,gh2,ter-, with a syllabic allophone
of the laryngeal, just like the 'wolf' word was *wl,kWos with a syllabic
allophone of /l/.

> It's older than any other Indo-Iranian law.
> Important to add that it farway preceed the vocalization of
> vocalised laryngeal to i

No matter how old it is in IIr., it's _restricted_ to IIr. Crucially,
there is no such thing in Greek: tHugáte:r (not +tukHáte:r), mega- <
*meg^&2- (not +mekHa-, cf. Skt. mahi), póntos (not +póntHos, cf. Skt.
pa(n)tH-), etc. In those cases where other branches can be used as
witnesses, there's no aspiration either (e.g. *meg^h2- > Arm. mec, Goth.
mikils, etc., pointing to an unaspirated stop).

> > What other reasonable etymologies have you got for unaspirated vs.
> > aspirated stops in the instrumental suffix, for example?
>
> Post the examples here => I asked for this several times

They have been posted on many occasions. Search the archives. I can't do
your homework for you. Just to show you what happens after laryngeals:

*tr.h1-trah2 > Lat. terebra
*pah2-tlom > Lat. pa:bulum
*poh3-tlom > Lat. po:culum

How do you explain this variation?

Piotr