Miguel to some guy whose name I forgot:

>I was talking about word-final, not root-final. The root is
>*(s)neh2-, in any case. Maybe *-p became *-h2 (*-p > *-f > *-x is >not
>unthinkable).

Since *x (traditionally *H2) was most likely pronounced /h./ (in
order to explain the colouring of *e to *a in IndoEuropean), what
you are in effect saying is, "It is not unthinkable that /p/ can
become /h./"!! Quite unlikely since *p obviously has no redeeming
"back" qualities.

There is simply no need to explain the lack of final stops in IE.
In reality, one can only conclusively say that there is no *-p or
*-k... but this is a moot relevation since there are relatively
few athematic endings in IE to begin with. IE terminates _most_
words with a small number of suffixes! However, *-t _does_ exist
in contradiction to Miguel's pseudolaws and it's most probable
that final *-d and *-t were interchangeable. The only words that
may have escaped rabid suffixing would be the inanimate nouns
but even here, many are heteroclitics ending with a fused
syllabic *-r termination alternating with *n in all cases but nominative and
accusative. If they had once ended in stops,
this fact would be erased by the use of these endings.

So I'm afraid that *p, *t and *k derive from none other than
*p, *t and *k. Boring? I know. But closer truth no doubt. IE's
perceived absence of final stops is largely caused by the
synthetic, suffixing nature of the language and the greater
preference towards thematic endings, starting especially in
the Mid IE stage (6000-5000 BCE).

- gLeN


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com