From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 55773
Date: 2008-03-23
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter ('LARYNGEALS')
> On 2008-03-23 02:37, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>
> > If the laryngeal merely preserved the quality of the
> > original vowel, we would always have laryngeals of the same
> > colouring [the same subscript in terms of the laryngeal
> > theory] on both ends of the vowel. The fact that we do have
> > *h2eh1, *h3eh2/*h2eh3 etc. disproves that. The fact that we
> > _don't_ seem to have *h1eh1, *h2eh2 ot *h3eh3 tends to
> > confirm that *h1, *h2 and *h3 were separate phonemes, given
> > that consonants do not normally repeat themselves in PIE
> > roots (reduplications excepted).
>
> But examples like *h1reh1- 'row', *h2auh2o- 'grandfather' and *ses-
> 'sleep, rest' suggest that this root-structure constraint did not apply
> to fricatives.
>
> Piotr
***
Piotr,
I hope that you do not mind my intruding into this, but Miguel is, I hope,
talking about root restraints which do not apply to the stems you cite.
The root of 'grandfather' is, in your notation, *h2aw- (*CVC). We may have a
rare reduplication in the fuller form: *h2aw-h2aw -> *h2auh2o-.
With *h1reh1-, I believe this is a rare example of an aspirated liquid
giving up its aspiration by lengthening the following vowel: *rHe -> *re:-,
a 'laryngeal'-less long vowel.
The initial *h1 is the first element of a compound: *h1e-.
I also think Miguel is off-base here but I will address that in another
email.
Patrick