Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> 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).

a pure speculation not sustained by anything.

> 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].

Talk about 'pure' consonants not about Reasonants
Keep the logic of the discussion please

> 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?

Simple: Because there are no such pattern CH- in PIE

ph3 gave b and others were impossible clusters => that triggered
methatesis 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/.

These are notations Piotr (at least you write the same syllables as
I posted 20 times)
If you want to talk about sounds Ok if not let's forget

> > 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

Really? What the accent of the Greek word tell you : NOTHING?

> They have been posted on many occasions. Search the archives. I

can't do

> your homework for you.

'homework for me'?
I think that you have learned from me all these days how many
issues Olsen's theory has ...

> 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

I will take a look.

Marius