Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar Approximant

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 61155
Date: 2008-11-01


Of course, I agree with most of what Piotr has written below but I favor a different interpretation of the scansion.
 
It looks more likely to me that *H(2) has simply become an unindicated in the spelling [?].
 
 
Patrick


To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
From: gpiotr@...
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 00:16:38 +0100
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar Approximant


On 2008-10-31 23:40, Arnaud Fournet wrote:

> I'm afraid you'll have to provide much more explanation to explain your two
> previous explanations.

OK. Slowly and distinctly. In those IE branches that lost the laryngeals
compensatory lengthening took place in the following contexts:

(1) Word-finally, as in *newah2 > *newa:
(2) Before a consonant, as in *seh1mn. > *se:mn. or *doh3-t > *do:t

In both cases the laryngeal was originally in the same syllable as the
lengthened consonant. If, however, the laryngeal was followed by a vowel
or a syllabic consonant, it was syllabified together with it, and its
loss caused no lengthening of the _preceding_ syllabic segment. I will
use a comma for syllable boundaries. Thus:

*na,h2us > *na,us (disyllabic scansion of <naus.> in the R.gveda)
*h2we,h1n.,tos > *we,(h)n.,tos (> Av. va'ata-)
*gWr.,h3e,ti > *gWr.,(r)e,ti > *gW&,re,ti (> Skt. giranti)
*su,h1e,ti > *su,(w)e,ti (> Skt. suvati)

etc.

Piotr