V.Shevoroshkin LARYNSEALS AND VOWELS There are many fine remarks spread through the materials of our Conference, but there are also many things which cause dissatisfac-.< tion, _- Unjustified dogmatism of earlier days is still strong; on the other hand, a new and methodologically vulnerable tendency becomes ap- parent: tendency to build a reconstruction on typological data, and not on the results of genetic comparisons. Strongly neglected are re- cent studies by German comparativists of the younger generation, though these studies are based on the material of Hittite - one of the most archaic Indo-European languages. Entirely ignored are brilliant stu- dies by V.M,I1li&-Svity& and A.B.Dolgopolsky who, quite independently of each other, have reconstructed the "Nostratic" proto-language, i.e. a language which gave birth to several language families, including the Indo-European. This reconstruction was first proposed in 1964; it was supported by many outstanding comparativists; as V.A,Dybo men- tions in his foreword to the 3rd part of I1lit-Svity%'s Nostratic dic- tionary, this reconstruction has successfully resisted criticism and proved being correct in all essential points (part 3 appeared in 1964). Returning to our topic I would like to mention that I have found in the materials of the Conference some support to the idea on which my reconstruction of IE laryngeals has been founded. This idea consists of two components:i) there were several IE h-type fricatives of different quality ; 12) these fricatives were not yowel~coloring. Hittite data show that Hittite h (phonetically [x] as it can be seen on borrowings from Hittite and Lycian and on fore%m versions of Anatolian proper names) could appear before any vowel, as well as before [w]; from the point of view of IE reconstruction this means that at least one IE fricative of the type [x] could appear, in PIE (Proto-Indo-European), before any IE vowel as well as before *w. This conclusion is rather close to that of H.Eichner who assumes that IE "*H5" can appear before any vowel (including IZ *8, though not *e) as well as *w, as it is seen on Hittite h (according to Fichner, IE “Hy is represented ty Hittite hj IE *H, and *H, disappeared in Anatolian). To justify his thesis about IE *H, ( we would say, a strong [x]-fricative) not appearing before IE *e in Hittite, Eichner considers Hit. hekur 'Fels(gipfel)', 'Felsheiligtum' as having a long 6 < IE *é which is most certainly wrong. One can cite some Hit- tite words of IE origin which have b- before -e- < IE ‘e, e.g. Hit. ‘shenk-an ‘death’ etc.; be(i)u- ‘rain’; our bekur; itisa fact that in most Hittite words where b- precedes a vowel of IE origin this vowel originates from IE +a; but fi an anthropomorphic (and not a phonp- iegical) phenomenon: in very many languages a strong fricative of the type [x], [x] (or the like) appears most frequently before [a]. The strong IE fricative(s) in question could appear after any vo~ wel and after any sonorant, as shown by Hittite data. We can reconstruct a weak IE fricative *H as opposed to the above strong fricative *X: in Hittite, this weak *H disappeared initially, but lengthened preceding vowel or sonorant non-initially. We have arrived to the following preliminary interpretation: IE__ > Hittite IE__> Hittite IE_> Hittite *Xe- >7 he/i- *-eX- > -e/ib- “ork > -rh- *Ka- > ba~ *-aX- > -abh- *-1K- > -1b- *Xo- > hae *-0X- > -abh- *-nK- > -nb- "iw > bu(w)- *He- > e/i- *-eH- > -6- *erH- > -rr- “Hae > a s-aH- > -a- s-1H- > -11- “Ho > a *-0l- > -a- *onH- > -nn- *HWwe > u(w)= ete, Forms with diphthongs or long vowels behaved similarly. There are a few Hittite words in hi- where IE roots in *Xai- can be reconstruc- ted. There are many Hittite words in hu-/puw- which originate from TE roots in *Xeu-,*Kau- and *Xou-. In all these cases there is no evidenge whatsoever which would allow for reconstruction of vowel- coloring laryngeals. There is no such evidence in Greek either. Greek vowels e, a, 0 either directly originate from IE *e, *a, *o respectively or have to be explained by internal Greek development; in some cases, pro- thetic e-, a-, o- in Greek may originate from IE *X or *H plus redu- ced *, 5", » Or *, jin words like that for ‘name the prothesis must be an internal Greek plenomenon: since other languages belonging to the IE family do not alow for a reconstruction "PIE *X/Hon...-", (neither allow for it related Nostratic languages: Afro-Asiatic *nn?, Uralic *nime < Nostr, **nim?E in Dolgopolsky's reconstruction; IE *n6mn seems to be derived from PIE *némn < “nelim- < **nim?-), 2 ?As for Greek &, 4, 6, they originate from IE *eX/H, *aX/H, *oX/H re- spectively (in some cases they might be explained as direct represen- tation of IE *8, *a, *6). Armenian data show that only a part of Hittite words in h- has cor- respondences with h- in Armenian; other words show |in Armenian/no ho: Hit. bar(k)- ‘have, hold' but Arm, argel ‘obstacle, impediment’ (with- out h-); Hit. hink- 'bow, worship’ but Arm, ank/giun 'corner' (IE root shows an alternation *e : *o : zero; for *o cf, Greek égkos 'a bend'); Hit. hastai ‘bone’ but Arm, oskr id. [As for the correspondence + boo: Arm h-, of, Hit, hant- ‘front’, bantae- 'to direct’, bantiai- ‘to favor' versus Arm, hancSem 'I lead'; Hit. batta- ‘cut’ (if < IE "Xefa-) versus Arm, hat 'a cut, gash, fragment’, hatanem 'I cut off'; Hit. huha~ ‘grandfather’ (< PIE *XauX-) versus Arm, hav id.; Luwian hawi-, Lycian xawa 'sheep' (< PIE *Xowi-) versus Arm. hovi-w- ‘shepherd', etc. ] These data can be interpreted in the following way: IE *X represents not one, but two strong fricetives, of which only one was preserved in Armenian. One scarcely can reconstruct IE *x (a "back [x]") for words where h- lacks in Armenian, and IE *x for words where Armenian has h-: such a reconstruction would contradict the IE system of stops where there is no opposition of the type [q]: [k]. On the other hand, if we reconstruct an IE opposition *y (cf, words with no h- in Arm.) : *x (cf. Arm, words in h-) we can justify it by comparison with IE stop opposition *g +: *k, [If Armenian stop system is more archaic than that of Sanskrit,one can compare exactly Armenian opposition g: k which would correspond to IE [g]:.[k], traditionally ‘gh: *g]. As a result we have the following: TE *x- > Hit. b-, Arm, h-; IE ‘*y- > Hit. b-, Arm, 9 (ive., zero). We certainly have to reconstruct one or more weak ‘Laryngeals' which have disappeared both in Hittite and Armenian; we reconstruct a ‘summary” “H, i.e., "one [e.g., *h or *?], two [e.g.,voiced pharyngeal *¢ and it!s voiceless counterpart “h] or three [e.g., *7, *S, *h] weak fricatives of the type H"; we are not allowed- reconstruct an exact. subsystem of weak "“laryngeals" since we do not have enough data for it, There are indica- tions that some of these weak fricatives remains’ as h- in Albanian, tut up to now Albamian data have been too vague; other data are poor as well. 3The "subsystem" of IE fricatives of the type [x]/[{h] which can be re- constructed on the real basis provided by real IE languages is as fol- lows: TE *x > Hit.-Luw, (Anat.) *h (> Hit. by bb) and Arm. he TE *Y > Hit.-tuw, (Anat.) th (> Hit. by bb) and arm, g- IE *H (2,2 or 3 phonemes )(or 472) > Hit.,Luw, and Arm, g- If we have to be even more cautious we may ignore Armenian facts (since h in Armenian is rather unstable) and limit ourselves to the following summary system: TE strong *X > Hit.-Luw. *h (> Hit. b, Bb) ete. TE weak = *H_=—«#> ‘Hit.-Luw. g- ete. We can not reduce this system to, say, one "laryngeal" because this would contradict Hittite data: Hittite shows, without any doubt, that there were at least two "laryngeals" in the IE proto-language: a strong one [which turned h(h) in Hittite] and a weak one [which disappeared initially but was reflected as length non-initially in Hittite; if there wre a "zero" in PIE there would be no length-reflection in Hittite as well as in other languages]. Now we have to deal with the problem of vowels. As I have mentioned above, there is no reason to reconstruct IE "vowel-coloring" laryngeals. Facts of different TE languages clearly show that at least five vowels (te, “a, *o, *i, *u) existed in PIE, Important is the fact that vowels te, "a, "0 appear in many independent roots of PIE both before and after "laryngeals" (root types o(c)eX/H-, O(C)aX/H-, C(C)oK/H= 5. X/Hec(C)-, X/Hac(C)-, X/HoC(C)-; CeX/HC-, CaX/HC-, CoX/HC-] whereas in other rocts, i.e., between non-"laryngeals, only *e appears regular- ly. This does not mean that *a and ‘o did not exist, as phonemes, be- tween non-laryngeals; but, statistrally, these vowelswere unfrequent. One can assume that "laryngeals" *X end *H have preserved the quality | 1s inherited from the previous stages of the language"; in the position (-)CVC(-), i.e., between non-laryngeals, most original vowels became *e, This interpretation is supported by scores of Nostratic: paral- lels; let us first take a few examples of roots which lack “laryngeals": in such roots the original Nostr. vowels is usually represented by IE *e; if the original vowel was **i or **u, IE could get a diphthong: [1] Nostr. **moLV 'crash' > IE *mel-, Afro-As, *ml-, Uralic tnob[a]- id.; 4[2] Nostr. **fowda 'move quickly’ > IE *ieudh- “move quickly,violent- ly; fight', Afro-As,‘nwd ‘move quickly', Ural. “fowSa- ‘chase’ [note exact phonetic rules, e.g., Nostr. ** > IE *i ; Nostr, **d > IE *dh, Ural. *-§-, etc.]; (3] Nostr. **fhamV 'squeeze, grasp' > IE *iem ‘hold tightly, tridle', Ural. *famV- (and *fomV-) 'squeze, grasp’, Dravidian *fiamV 'squeeze,press' [4] Nostr, **murV ‘break, crash' > IE *mer- ‘crash, grind', Afro-As. *m(w)r- ‘crash, cut', Ural. *mura 'fragile, a fragment’ etc. [5] Nostr. **iejna 'soft, weak' > IE *lei[-n/r-] ‘soft, weak, thin', Afro-As, *1jn ‘soft, weak', Ural, tejna 'weak', etc, ete, etc. These examples were taken from the 2nd volume of I11it-Svityt's No- stratic Dictionary ("Opyt sravnenija nostratiteskix jazykov ..."Moskva 1976; comparative phonetic tableScan be found in volume one published in 197%; note that I.-S, reconstructs six daughter languages of Proto~ Nostratic, i.,e., IE, Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian; Uralic, Dravidian, Al- taic, whereas Dolgopolsky does not believe in the existence of an Alta- ic protolanguage: he limits himself with three closely related langua- ges, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusian, which he derives directly from Nostratic or, for that matter, from East Nostratic (alongside with Ura- lic and Dravidian; IE, Afro-As, and Kartv. are West Nostratic). According to Dolgopolsky, the following Nostr. consonants were sour- ces of IE “laryngeals": **q, "9, **x, **y, **h, **h, **%, **? (as for I.-S., he reconstructed only six). Neither I.-S. nor Dolgopolsky went so far as to abandon the classic theory of IE laryngeals with it's triad ‘*e,, *ep, *e3 which were interpreted as *H, th and *h” in ac- cordance with the presence of h in Hittite. So, to derive a root like IE *Xant- 'front' from Nostratic (this root was presented by them as *hent- in IE) they had to postulate the following process: Nostr, **qant'V 'front' > IE *hent- > Hittite hant-. This meant that Nostr. **q became IE *h (and not *H or *h”) because, in Nostratic, the root vowel was **a; this vowel was generalized’ in’ In- do-Europeai; later the generalized root vowel (say, *e) became’a, as it is clear from many IE languages (Hittite, Greek, Latin etc.). Accor- dingly, a root with the first Nostr. vowel **& or **e or **i got a pa latalized *h in IE becoming *heC(¢)- ; hence e in IE languages: a vowel 5colored by the preceding palatal laryngeal. As for IE °o, it's source was, according to I.-S, and D., Nostr, **o or **u; but here also we had to deal with a generalized *e first: IE *h™eC(C)-, with labialization caused by Nostr. **o or *u, became *HoC(C)- (Hittite ha,.., Greek and Latin o,.., etc.). This, rather complex, rule seemed to work because a similar rule indeed worked for roots with initial gutturals: Nostr. forms of the type KaC(C)V (K - any guutural) became IE KaC(C)-; Nostr. K&/eC(C)V became IE keC(C)-, and Nostr. Ko/uc(C)V became IE KWeC(C)-. Here indeed we deal with palatalizea or palatal gutturals before original, Nostratic palatal vowels, and with labiovelars before original labial vowels: Nostr. Ki-, Ke- > IE ke- (palatalization in Satem languages) Nostr. Ka~ > IE Ke- Nostr. Ko-, Ku- > IE K”e- (labiovelars in Centum languages). Not only palatalized and labiovelar consonants were real in this case, - generalization of vowels into IE *e was real as well (except before a la- vingeal and in some specific cases), Palatalization or labialization of vowels of the auslaut (i.e., TE postvocalic gutturals was caused by Nostr. CVKV) which, as a rule, disappeared in IE, An attentive study of IE roots inherited from Nostratic showed that ame IE ‘a if it neightored an IE laryngeal (hence IE roots of the type X/HaC-, X/HaCC-; CaX/H+, CCaK/H-); Nostr.“a,"e and (in certain roots, e.g., before-C) i became IE *e under the same condition (hence IE roots of the type X/ileC-, X/leCC-, CeX/H-, CCeX/i-); Nostr. **oy ‘tu became IE *o, but in certain root types Nostr **u became IE *au/*wa/*u. All this meansthat IE laryngeals preserved to a certain degree the meigh- doring Nostratic vowels: **a stayed as *a;**d, **e , **4 retained their pa- latal character in IE *e; **o,**u retained their labial character in IE *o. Note alSo that, when diphthongized, Nostr. **i and **u became PIE *ai/-i and *au/*wa/*u accordingly, as shown by many archaic forms.We can be rather certain that the IE proto-language no such phonemes as * sh, *h, *h¥ which could color the following vowel turning it into *e, *a, *o accordingly. Nostr, **a became IE Before I turn to illustrations I have to specify whith Nostr, conso- nants, among the eight listed above (i.e., **a, **g, **x, **y, **h, **h, **9, **?), were sources.of IE *X,and whith - of IE *H. 17 years ago I have identified first five as sources of *X, and last three as those of *H; so it was cited in my abstract for this Conference. But a few months ago my young colleague M.Kaiser (now in Provo, Utah) has correctly shown that 6the unfrequent Nostr. **h becane,in PIE , a weak (*H),and mot a strong cx), fricstive, As a result, we hav: Nostr.**q, **9s — “"Y > IE *X Nostr.**h, **S, *th, **7 > TE *H. When taking in consideration Armenian data we are able to recon- struct a more precise picture: Nostr. **a, “*x > IE *x (> Hitt. bh, by; Arm. h-, etc.) Nostr., **g, “"y > IE ty (> Hitt. h, bh; Arm, g , etc.) Nostr. *H [protably more than Z phoneme] > IE *H (Hitt., Arm. g-) This reconstruction is well supported by linguistic data; I am going to cite below only a few; sets [6-10] represent Nostr. **g (> IE *x): [6] Nostr. **qant'V 'front' > IE *xant- id. (Hitt. b-, Arm. h-; see above, page 3); Afro-as. *xn[t'] 'front/southern part, nose';Tungus. “antV 'front/southern part' (I11it-Svity% reconstructs "Altaic *antV" in "Etimologija 1965", Moskva 1967, p. 354; Dolgopolsky adds another Altaic language - Korean anthi 'front), Note that Nostr. **-nt'- can yield both *-nt'- and *-nt- in Afro-Asiatic; all phonetic correspon> dences are regular (e.g., Nostr. “*t' > IE *t, as Nostr, **aYk'>IE *k); [7] Wostr. **qalV ‘lower' > IE *xal- (as in Hitt. hallu- ‘low, deep’ etc.); Afro-As.*xl- id.; Ural. *ala ‘lower part', Turkic *al- id. (see I.-S. "Etimologija 1965" p. 35%; cf. Korean arai ‘under'); [6] Nostr. **qorV ‘dig! > IE *xor- id. (as in Hit, harie- ‘dig in, bury', Greek ortissd ‘dig, bury' etc.); Afro-As. *xr ‘dig! (as in Egypt. xp 'grave' etc.); Turkic *or- ‘dig; ditch’ [ef, next ?]; [9] Nostr. **qurV 'pierce' > IE *xwer- ‘make hole’ (as in Hit, istama— ~hura- ‘'ear-pierce' > 'earring'); Afro-As. *x(w)r '(make) a hole’; Kartv. *qwr 'make hole, gnaw through'; Mongol. *ir-/ur- ‘hole, ditch’ (&.Sevort'am compares the above Turkic ‘or-; see his "Etimol. slovar' tturkskix jazykov", M, 1974, p. 467); Drav. ‘ur- 'pierce, make a hole’. (Note regular correspondences: Nostr. **q > Kartv. *a, IE, Afro-As. “x5 8s well as a sporadic length in East Nostr. languages ; note also that Nostr.**qoC-,**xoC- yields IB *xoC-, wheras Nostr. **quc-, “*xuC- yields IE *xauC-/xweC-/xuc-]; 2[z0] Nostr. **queV ‘twist, plait' > IE *xaus-/xwes- (<*xwas-)/xus- id. (as in Hitt. busa- 'part of the bridle’, Lithuan, dusti 'weave' etc.); Afro-As.: Semitic *xwé’ ia,Sets [12] and [12] show Nostu, "*9 and **y accordingly: (21) Nostr. “*guj/wru ‘flow; a liquid' > IE * yaur-/Cywar->) “ywer- Apur- (as in Luwian purammi- ‘irrigated’, Hit. pur-nu- ‘to moisture, sprinkle’, Greek 4n-auros 'waterless' etc.); Afro-As. ‘ywr 'get wet, wet lowland, lake' (Afro-As. *y < Nostr ""g); Karty. *ywar- 'flow, pour, get wet’ Tungus. "Gru 'flow', Mongol. turus- ia.; Drav. *dru ‘flow, ooze; moisture! [12] Nostr. “*yarg'/k'a 'keep, prevent' > IE “gark-/(*yrak->) *yrek- (as in Hit, bark-, nar- ‘have, hold', Arm, argel ‘obstacle, impediment! with regular -rg- < IE *-rk-); Afro-As, *@rk! ‘impede, prevent' (note the regular change Afro-As. *S- < Nostr. **y-); Turkic ‘ar- as in ‘argin. Set [6] shows Nostr. **q- > IE *x > Arm h-; a few more sets showing the same development are cited by M,Kaiser and myself in our paper "On IE Laryngeals and Vowels, I, Laryngeals before.Vowels" (forthcoming in the JZES) but we could not find good examples for Arm, h- as originating frox ZE *x- < Nostr, **x-; a few examplegshow "either **q or **x": {Z3] Nostr. **q/xawa/x[u] ‘elder relative (uncle, grandfather)! > IE *xaux[o]-/*xuxo- id, (as in Hit. hubha- 'grandfather', Lycian xuga id., Arm, hav id,, Lat. avus id., also 'ancestor'); Tungus. *a&vus ‘uncle’ etc. (24] **a/cajv ‘ram, sheep'> IE *xawi- > *xowi- ‘sheep! (as in Luw.pawi-, yc. xawa, Arm, hovi- in hovi-w- ‘shepherd’, Lat. ovi-s, Slav. *owi-); Pungus. ‘u/iija-m ‘ram’. Set [£2] shows Nostr.**y- > IE *y- > Hit. b-, Arm, Q-; examples gathered in our paper show that where Nostr, roots in **g- and **y- are involved, Hittite shows }- and Armenian shows Y- (lost laryngeal); to these set? (e.8., Nostr. **yU&'HV 'bone' > IE *yost(H)- > Hit. yastai, Arm, os-k-r) one can add a few more, - e.g [15] Nostr. **yLo]e'v ‘twig! > IE *yos-d- id. (as in Arm. ost, Greek édz0s, and probably Hit. hasd-uir with some deviation in it's meaning: "Unkraut, Abfall, [trockenes] Reisig') [Dolgopolsky, unpublished materiais] IE word *yaster ‘star' (Hit, Raster, Arm, asti) is either a borro- wing from Semitic (Sem.*@ttr) or a common Nostr. word in **y- . There are not too many Nostr. words in **q-, **g- , **x- and **y- which, in IE, have a front vowel after the initial consonant; we can cite one which is present both in Hittite and Armenian: [Z6] Nostr. **genq'/c' /AV or **yenq'/k' /kV_ ‘to bow, bend' > IE *yenk/g- > *yonk/g-, *Yak/e- (as in Hit. e/ink- 'to bow, worship', Greek égkos ‘a bend', Lat. uncus ‘hook; bent’, Arm, ank/giun ‘corner’); Purkic “i/en- ‘to bend, bow';Tung. *en- "bend, Joint!There are many Nostr. roots in **?, **h, **S, **h which show loss of initial consonant both in Hittite and Armenian (hence the reconstruction “H for PIE); non-initially, IE *H is reflected as consonantal or vocalic jength in many IE languages. Some examples with the above initials follow: [£7] Nostr. **?esa ‘dwell, stay’ > IE tHes- ‘vet (as in Hit. es-, Arm em < *es-mi; Afro-As. *?js 'be (at a place)' etc.; Ural. *eSA ‘settle (a place)' [Note thas **s, **c etc. as reconstructed by I.-S. correspond to “*8, **6 in Dolgopolsky's reconstruction, and vice versa]; [18] Nostr. **harV ‘arrange, put in order’ > IE *Har- ‘ordain, direct, suit’ (as in Hit. ara- ‘welfare, right, suitability’, arm, ar-d ‘structure ornament’, arnem 'I make'); Afro-As. *hr- id.; ‘Tungus, ara- ‘make, put in order'; [19] Nostr. **Sandv 'man' > TE *Handh- id, (as in Hit. antuwahha-, Greek dnthropos, "Pre-Greek" andr-); Cush, as representing the Afro-As.: *SVnd- ‘people, family, kin'. This correspondence is exact as far as the consonants are concerned; as for the vowel, Nostr, **a is reconstructed here because in very many cases the correspordence Nostr, **a : IE *a is corroborated by Uralic, Altaic and Dravidian, all showing ‘a; [20] Nostr. **SorbV ‘bereft' > IE *Horbh- id, (as in Hit. arp- ‘bad luck, misfortune’, Lycian erbbe [< *arba~] 'misfortune', Arm, orb ‘or- phan', Lat. orbus 'bereft'); Afro-As. *Srb ‘deprived of smth.' [Cf, note to the previous set; Nostr, **o > IE *o in set 8 above, as well as in many other examples: Nostr, **?0q'i 'sharp' > TE *Hok-; Nostr, **yolV ‘leaf, green’ > IE *yol- ‘greens, green plant'; cf, also next set]; [21] Nostr. **horV 'rise, move upward' > IE *Hor- 'rise, move! (as in Hit. arai- ‘rise, stand up', Arm, y-ay-ne-m 'I arise’, Lat, orior id.); Afro-As, *hr ‘move, agitate’; Tungus. *ora- ‘climb up; top of an object'; Turkic *ord- 'rise up; elevated place’; Korean ori- 'rise up', etc.; [22] Nostr, **Sup'E 'get up, upwards' > IE(*Haup->) *Hup- ‘get up,arise’ (Hit. up- id., Engl. up, etc.); Afro-As. : Semitic *Sup 'fly'. As one can easily notice, all four weak fricatives of Nostratic are well preserved in Afro-Asiatic. Vowels are best preserved in East Nostratic Once again I would like to underline this thesis: IE "laryngeals" were not _"vowel-coloring". Nostratic data corroborate this thesis: where Nostra- tic has **a (as it is clear from East Nostr, languages), the IE languages (and the reconstructed on their basis PIE) have [a] as well [or 0 < *a, for that matter]. Where Nostr. has **o, PIE has *o; where Nostr. has **e (and **#), PIE has *e as well. It has no sence to postulate a development Nostr. **a > IE *e > *a (after a putative "a-coloring laryngeal") if one 9can simply state that the proto-vowel (in this case, **a) was preserved as *a after any "laryngeal" in PIE, and stayed as {a] in individual IE lan- guages unless it was not changed to [o] in some of them, The same with "*o or **e: they stayed as *o or *e respectively; why, indeed, should we postulate a process **Xo- > *XWe- > "(X)o- > o- if we simply can state that **o has been preserved as *o ? Let us summarize the discussed develop ment: the following table represents IE vowels after strong (< Nostr. **q, "x, "*g, "*Y ) and weak (< Nostr. **?, **h, **%, **h) "laryngeals': NOSTRATIC > INDO-EUROPEAN ve “a *o *e (before clusters and sonorants), *ai/*ia/*i(> *ei/*ie*/i) “tu *o (before clusters), *au/*wa/su (> *eu/*we/*u). The above vocalic development took place in roots where a vowel preceded a "laryngeal" ; strong IE “laryngeal(s)’ became Hit. -b(b)-; week IE laryn- geal(s) lengthened the preceding vowel.Words with IE *X (= *x and *y): [23] Nostr, “*sigjU (after Dolgopolsky; Uralic *8iyv- ‘to weave,plait’ etc > IE *gexi-/sxai-/sxieu- > *sexi-/sxei-/sxieu-, of. Hit, ish@i-~/ishiya- "bind', ishiul 'treaty' etc.; booked by J.Pokorny under *s&(i)-,tsei-/st-, “sei-/si- 'binden, Strick, Riemen' and ’sit-,"siy-,'si- ‘nihen'; [24] Nostr. **8ig (so after I,-S, in "Btimologija 1966" 1.1968, p.402; **sigd after Dolopolsky; Afro-As. *Sx, *éxx ‘urinate', Mong. "sige- id.) > IE "*saix-> *seix- in Hit. s&h-ur ‘urine! (q, IE *sei-k¥- ‘urinate, drip'); [25] Nostr, **p'iywv 'fire' (as in Kartv. *pxw-, *px- ‘warm', Ural.*piwe ‘hot, warm'; ** after Afro-As, *pSw 'fire'and Kartv.: Afro-As. can also i: dicate **¢; Karty, *x can also indicate **x) > IE *pexw- > *poxw- (H.pabbur: [26] Nostr. **p'[i]xfa 'to graze/shepherd, protect, care' > IE *paix- > *poik-, *pik-jor *pexi->*poxi-(*icW(iit. pah-s-, Sanskr. p&-, pay- etc.); I.-S. (3rd part of the Nostr, Dict., M. 1984, p.106-ITZ) reconstructs Nostr. *[pS]eHfia, as in Drav. *pénV- ‘protect, care'; *f in Uralic *pffia is consi- dered to be secondary (but *péfia is not attested as a Uralic root). He re- constructs IE *pe[h]i- which contradicts the classical laryngeal theory (according to which IE *h disappears in Hittite); the resulting IE *péi- (> *p-/*pi-) is separated by him from a root with *@: IE *p&(i)-.It is aot excluded, though, that all these unnecessary deviations were masterminded in toto 1.-8.'s posthumous work: in "Btimologija £965" I.-S. reconstructs Nostr. **p'i[HJAV. One can add thatVhis reconstruction of the IE corres- pondence as *peH™i- (ibid. p. 354; with ti < **A)erigin of “HY remaine: unexplained since there were no neighboring “*y or ‘0, In I,-, 3, the origin of IE *o was more realistically explained as an ablaut of *e <**e, But instead of reconstructing "*h" we have to write *X which is reflec- ted in Hittite as hh (a/ter Hit 2), There are roots where a strong IE "laryngeal" (< Nostr.**a,**x,*"g,**y) appears not before, but after a consonant in"CVCC-":Heshar : N.**SEgxVyet The following sets contain a weak IE "laryngeal" (< Nostr, **?,**h,**S, **h) after the root vowel (roots of the type CVX/H-, CVX/HC- sCWX/H-): [27] Nostr. **tu?E 'two' (after Dolgopolsky) > IE *dwoH~u) etc, as in Hit. da-, Lyc. da-[a< Anat. *a< IE*oH ], Lyc. B tbi- [< *dwi- or *twi-]; [28] Nostr. **daHV (connecting and emphasizing particle; Nostr. langua- ges show a weak “laryngeal’: Afro-As. ‘dH, *d; Karty. ‘da ‘and'; Turkic "da Mong. *d&, Tung. "di: see I.-S.'s Dictionary vol. 1, p, 24-215) > Ip ‘da: (as in Hit. ta, with a shortening of *a; ‘a is shown by Slav. *da); [29] Nostr.**disu’ ~ 'put'(cf, Afro-as, *wdS, *dS; Kertv, “aw-, *d- ia >IE *dheH-, dhai-, dhe(H)w- etc. ‘put', as in Hit. te-, t/dai-, Luw, tuwe ‘put’ (*-w- also in Baltic verbs, as well as in Greek); [50] Nostr. **toHV 'give' (< “"give/take, exchange'? - Ural, *td-Y-e- ‘give'; I.-S. and D, consider *ta- ‘give, get,take' of:Alt, languages and Drav, *t& 'give[to the Ist and 2nd pers’ as related to Nostr. **toHV) > TE *doH- 'give'; Hit, d&- ‘take’ belongs here as well; [31] Nostr. **tehv or **te?v ‘say'(as in Turkic *t8-; note that Kartv. “txo- 'ask' is derived from Nostr. *tVXV which is quite different) > IE “deH- ‘say’ > Hit, t8- id. (this root is also present in Slavic); [32] Nostr, *ulV 'cut' (weak “laryngeal” indicatea by Kartv.*p'u- id. and by Tungus. *pi- 'to saw') > IE “peHu-/pa- etc. ‘cut, beat’ (as in "Lue wian" languages, e.g., Lyc. pu-, puwe- ‘cut, incise, write; beat', etc.). There are many IE roots of Nostr. origin which clearly indicate that 4 in many IE languages originates from *aX/H; 6 from *oX/H; 8 from *eX/H; this development is. shown by Nostratic data, Examples which follow do not contain Hittite-Luwian material; sets [53-5,37-] show IE *-aX/i-: [33] Nostr. **maHjV ‘weaken, perish’ (as in Turk. ‘maji-, Drav, *majv-) > IE *maHi-/*maH- 'to tire, get tired'> Slav. *m&je- etc. (I.-S. pt.3,p.48 [34] Nostr. **Lalim[u] ‘swamp' (Ural. *Lam-p-e, Mong, *nami-g < *lam-g ‘swamp’, Tungus. *ldmu 'sea'; Kartv. “lam 'silt, dampness') > IE *laHm Ir‘swamp, puddle' > Lat. lama id, ete. (I.-S.'s Dict., pt. 2, p.29-30); [35] Nostr. **waV ‘beat, crash, smash' (Afro-As. “wh ‘crash, uproot', Tungus. *wi- 'kill') > IE *waH- ‘beat, wound, damage’ > Greek a&d, etc.; [36] Nostr. **jokV 'to tie, begird'(as in Ural. *j0-~V ‘gird, cord';cf. Drav., *jA- ‘tie up'; for phonetics, see [30] above) > IE ‘io#- > Lithuan, Jfo-s-ti 'begird', Gr. dzdnmimi (-nn- < *-s-n-),ete.(I.-S. pt.t, p.278-9); [37] Nostr.**k'al%a 'leave' (Afro-As. *k'V19-, Ural, *ka$a- [*<**1H] i¢ Turkic *q&l- ‘stay’, Tungus, *xal- ‘wait') > IE *kalli-*kelH-/*klaH- ‘put! > Latv, klaju ‘cover',OEngl, hladan 'to load' etc. (Dolg. in "Etim. £970"35€ [38] Wostr. **za[q]LU 'shine' (Afro-As.* 3Vxl- ‘daylight;bright', Turkic *jalé[u]- ‘shine, flash') > IE *sa(H)wel-/*swel-/*su(H)1- ‘sun’ ("Bt. 172" z . and D. have reconstructed processes of the type **maHjV > IE *mehi > (*)mai-; “*LaHm[u] > *lehm- > (*)lam-; **wahV > *weh- > (*)w&- etc., de- signating by "IE *h" the putative “Hp, i.e., the "a-coloring laryngeal”. In reality, we deal with the preservation of ‘ta: Nostr, **maHJV > IE ‘mak >(*)mai-; **Lalm[u] > *laHm- > (*)lam-; "*wakV > ‘waH- > (*)w8-, ete., etc I.-S. and D. thought that the proto-vowels at first "colored" laryngeals, then became generalized, then were colored by "laryngeals", than became re~ stored (**all> *eh>*a; cf. **o> tel'5*5); it is much simpler to fully dis- card this double "coloring" and accept the thesis about (partial) preser- vation of the original quality of proto-vowels before and after IE *X/*H. A few more examples of IE *-VX/H- (with V = "e < Nostr.**e) follow: [39] Nostr.**Sehfa 'be/keep awake' (Afro-As. “Shr id.; Ural. *[8]Jerv- 46 Turkic *Sefd- ‘suspect, feel'; Mong. *sere/i- ‘suspect, doubt’; Tung,*siri- "be awake; to wake'; Korean sari- 'be on one's guard’ etc.) > IE ‘selir- 'be vigilant' (Lithuan, sérgti 'to guard', Unbr. ser- ‘preserve’; @ in Greek); [40] Nostr, **gEhra or **gErha ‘dawn' [Afro-As, *ghr 'day(light)';Mong *geré < ‘gére ‘light’; Tungus, *nird- ‘dawn, morning light’) > IE *gheri-, “greH- ‘dawn; to shine' > Lithuan. Zer@ti 'to shine', Olrish grfan ‘sun’ < <"Ghréind, etc. [see, for 39, I.-S. pt.2,page 107; for 40 - I.-S. 1,p.82]. This was only a small part of available Nostratic comparisons; they cor- roborate two conclusions achieved on the basis of inner-IE research: 1) There were at least 2 "laryngeals" in IE : *X and *H(or: % "95 “H), 2) These "laryngeals" were mot "yowel-coloring", though they affected the neighboring vowels in a certain way: they preserved the original qua- lity of these vowels (when vanishing, "laryngeals” lengthened the prece- ding vowels). If we want further reconstruction of IE laryngeals and vowels to be suc= cessful we have to use I.-S.'s and Dolgopolsky's Nostr. comparisons. (Note that Nostratics shows that IE *b, “a, *g could not be glottalize they originate from N. **p,**t,**k;possibly: IE *t é[th];*a €[t];"h <[a]). 3