"syllabicity"

[petegray]

Nath said:

> We find inserted
> i in bharibhrati and (ni)ghanighnate from *bher and *ghen and I would be
> very surprised if these two roots ever had an initial laryngeal.

Yes, point taken.    But as with so many historic reflexes of laryngeals,
once the original reason for the "abnormality" is lost, there is influence
and spread and - dare I say it - in a few cases analogy.   I wouldn't dare
to venture a particular explanation for the -i- in the two forms you quote.

I only say what must be said with all these potential indicators of
laryngeals:  the presence of one of the 14 or 15 historic reflexes of
laryngeals may - but only may - indicate a laryngeal.   When we find several
of these indicators, especially if spread over several languages, then we
can speak more certainly.   The claim is that the -i- in these Sanskrit
intensives is one of these indicators.

We could test that claim by checking how many examples there were, and how
many counter-examples.   At least, we could do that, if we were already
certain of where the laryngeals were!

Peter