From: gprosti
Message: 66075
Date: 2010-04-10
>Is parsimony preferred here because it's thought to be closer to the truth, or for other reasons?
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "G&P" <G.and.P@> wrote:
>
> >>> However, a schwa seems just as plausible as a laryngeal, unless
> >>> Anatolian shows otherwise.
>
> >> That idea presumably lies behind Pokorny's use of a schwa in so
> >> many of these words. But it doesn't explain all the effects we see -
> >> hiatus for example.
>
> > Which hiatus are you referring to?
>
> Presumably the forms in Vedic Sanskrit and the earliest Avestan
> hymns that have to be scanned with an extra syllable, like the
> word for 'wind': Skt. <vĂ¡:ta->, but earlier trisyllabic <vaata->.
>
> > (I'm sorry to be asking what may be a basic question.) Why is it
> > necessary to assume that this hiatus was caused by the same
> > phenomenon that causes the lengthening in <su:nara-> and the
> > initial vowel of <ane:r>?
>
> I don't know that it's *necessary*, but it's certainly the parsimonious
> explanation.
>
> Brian
>