Re: dhuga:ter ('LARYNGEALS')

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:52:53 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>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.

Yes, there are a few examples like that (I'm not sure about
the first one: Grk. ero:tao: seems to point rather to
*h1erh3-?). This suggests to me that the fricatives
underwent a few mergers after the root constraint stopped
working.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...