pre-IE k > H

[proto-language]

Dear Bob and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Whiting" <whiting at cc.helsinki.fi>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 5:26 PM

[ mdoerator snip ]

> But the value of the
> Hittite sound represented by the cuneiform cannot be extrapolated from
> the Akkadian value except to conclude that it is some kind of laryngeal.

> This being the case, Carol is still quite right in saying that
> k > laryngeal is better terminology than k > h.  But it has nothing
> to do with the diacritic under the h.

[PR]

I propose a minor correction.

/x/ is not a "laryngeal"; rather it is a dorsal fricative.

Also, since cuneiform had signs at its disposal that were VC, and these were
used in Ajjadian for syllables deriving from /?V/, e.g., I think the
presumption should be that [h] (with or without diacritical sub-hook)
represented /x/.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th
St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/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)