Re: Laryngeals: arguments from typology?

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

>
> W dniu 2010-04-08 04:34, gprosti pisze:
>
> > The second element of dvi:pa- begins with a vowel in its independent
> > form (ap-). The second element of dvidhA- begins with a consonant in its
> > independent form (dha:-). The two-mora pattern may not have applied to
> > the latter type of case.
>
> But why, e.g., <su:nára->, if the second element is nar- < *h2ner-,
> never with an initial vowel in Indic?

I agree that something was originally there prior to the <n-> of <nar> (witness Greek, etc.). However, a schwa seems just as plausible as a laryngeal, unless Anatolian shows otherwise.

And why is there no "analogical"

> lengthening if the root is of the shape *CeR-, with the muta cum liquida
> normally syllabified together, as in ágHnat- < *n.-gWHn-n.t-?
>

I don't understand. <ágHnat-> and other forms from earlier *n.-CRn.t- are in keeping with the aCC- pattern, so there's no need for analogical lengthening to apply.

> Piotr
>