--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
> --- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "etherman23" <etherman23@> wrote:
> > My current thinking (which presumes the Glottalic Theory and
> > Indo-Tyrrhenian Hypothesis) is that:
> > H1 was /S/
> > H2 was /h/ or perhaps /x/
> > H3 was /?/
> > Most unusual is the claim that H1 is /S/. ... In the Finnic
> languages *h corresponds
> > to *H1 in these words. This would imply that H1 is /h/ however PI
> > looks like it already has /h/ known as H2.
> But this argument fails if H2 was /x/.

True, so we have to look at whether H2 is more likely to be /h/ or
/x/. We know that H2 causes aspiration in Indo-Iranian. If H2 was /x/
wouldn't it more likely produce velarization instead? Which is more
likely to cause a-coloring? According to Bomhard (Towards
Proto-Nostratic) who uses Calarusso as a source, x, at least in the
Caucasian languages, have no coloring effects whereas h does. It also
seems that very few languages have both x and h.

> > We should also consider that H1 doesn't
> > cause any voicing assimilation.
> I thought [h] did not cause voicing assimilation - note the Latinate
> words beginning adh-.

Come to think of it, that's most likely true.