_PE_ 14:64 erratum: _ _ >> _ _
- View SourceOn page 64 of PE 14, l. 11, we read that "_<dh>_ > _b_, _m_" as root-
modification (where <dh> represents an edh in the text). Should that
not be "_<bh>_ > _b_, _m_" (where <bh> represents a barred-b)?
On the same page, we read that _w_ can be modified into _m_ and _b_,
and on page 63 we read : "<bh> usually written _w_ (in Q. phonology)".
[Yes indeed, it should read <bh> (i.e., barred-b). The item in question
was a late addition to the typescript in ink, and what in fact must surely be
a barred-b was written in such a manner as to appear to be an edh at first
glance. Thanks for catching this! CFH]