Intensive Reduplication

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Peter and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: petegray <petegray at btinternet.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 2:20 PM

>> Pat said:

>> I understand how you would like to interpret the -i- of the reduplicated
>> form (as the residue of a laryngeal) but aside from this, is there any
>> evidence in the *un*reduplicated form of your postulated initial laryngeal?

>Pete responds:

> Good question.   Since this conversation began with your theory that
> laryngeals were vowels, what would you accept as evidence?

Pat answers:

It is not correct to characterize my view as "laryngeals were vowels"
without much qualification. I assume that "laryngeals" existed as consonants
at some point in the development of IE or the language (Nostratic) from
which IE developed.

I think that, generally, by the times of reconstructable IE, they had become
vowels: [a:, e:, o:, u:, i:] or caused other nearby vowels to be lengthened.
In the example under discussion, I would accept as evidence of an initial
laryngeal forms of *g{w}em- which indicated a better reconstruction of
*Hg{w}em.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)