From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 55594
Date: 2008-03-21
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
>
> > >Interesting that you say "at least some (or most? or all?) of the
> > >time". I've been thinking along those lines myself. We distinguish
> > >the laryngeals by their vowel colouring and vocalic reflexes in Greek,
> > >mainly, but that doesn't mean that every laryngeal that gave /e/ in
> > >Greek must have come from the same unitary PIE laryngeal phoneme. In
> > >the case of *h1, I agree that some, or most of the time, we're dealing
> > >with /h/: (some) *h1('s) aspirate(s) a following or preceding stop,
> > >some *h1's give /h-/ in Armenian and Albanian. On the other hand, *h1
> > >must sometimes have been a simple glottal stop /?/: I believe a root
> > >like *h1es- "to be" is more likely to have been /?es-/ than /hes-/ (I
> > >mean, maybe it was */hes-/, but I don't think it's likely that *all*
> > >roots beginning with *h1V- had /h/).
> Miguel
> ***
>
> I think you are probably on the right track here but, I think, we must
> hold
> open the possibility that Anatolian had /?/ <Ø> and /h/ <h> while
> non-Anatolian had only /h/ <*H>.
> Patrick
> ***
>
> In favor of Baltic preserving laryngeals long enough
> to permit Hirt's law to exist,
> you have Aikio substrate words :
> ha'lpi = a'llap "snow Bunting"
> From Pok 30 Hel "white".
> ha'vda "eider" < *H2_w "bird"
> jewda-h- young swan < -eH2
>
> halpi conflicts with the idea
> that Hittite alpa "cloud" is the same
> as "white"
>
> Another puzzling fact is initial #h-
> in Latin in haud in ex-h-aurio
> Supposedly a pedantic irrelevant -h-,
> It occurs only when H2 is *?
> This suggest some varieties of LAtin
> still had *? versus *& contrast,
> at least at the initial of the word.
>
> Arnaud
> ===============
>
> > >As to *h3, I don't think /G/ is very likely. At least in late PIE, I
> > >think there were no voiced fricatives. Earlier voiced *z, as in the
> > >nom.sg. which lengthens the thematic vowel, later merged with *s, so
> > >it's very unlikely that *G, if it ever existed, did not merge with *x
> > >(*G is usually the first voiced fricative to go, cf. Dutch). Also, a
> > >voiced velar fricative does not explain the o-colouring, so we should
> > >at least have /Gw/, and that would be strange indeed, to have /Gw/
> > >without /G/.
>
> ***
> I do not believe that PIE had *z any more than it had *f, *G, or *x.
> It had only *w and *s.
> Patrick
> ***
>
> I agree there was no *f.
>
> *z * G *x *H existed.
> Arnaud
> =========
>
>
>
>