Parallels between h₂ and t in PIE and Nostratic, what is the explanation?

Question

In Afro-Asiatic we have the feminine ending -a which has the following evolution history:

-a < -ah_a < -at < et

where h_a is a glottal fricative.

In IE (for instance, in Russian, Greek, Latin) we also have the feminine ending -a which has the following history (classically):

-a < ah_a < eh_a

where h_a is the a-coloring laryngeal.

Can we by analogy suppose that h_a < t?

This gives a number of analogies between other PIE words:

h_aeuh_aos <-> teutos (both "grandfather") (also h_aetos is reconstructed for "father" in PIE -> Russian otets)

(compare Proto-Afro-Asiatic h_aabbah_a "father" here)

h_aeq^u- <-> teq^u- (both "flowing water")

h_aecsom <-> tecsom (both "axe")

h_aecmon "stone" <-> tecsōn "builder"

h_aeĝos <-> teĝos (both "leader")

h_aersos <-> tersos (both "dry, e.g., land") (compare also Greek χερσος, "dry land")

How can it be explained?

Answer 1

Let’s just take the beginning:

In Afro-Asiatic we have the feminine ending -a which has the following evolution history:

-a < -ah_a < -at < et

What does -ah_a mean in an AA context? There are actually lots of real-life laryngeals in Semitic. Which one is h_a? Where does “et” come from? Then you write:

where h_a is aleph

Aleph is the first letter of the alphabet. Are we talking about phonology or about spelling? Actually, the pausal form of the feminine singular nouns (which is what you are talking about) is spelt with final aleph in Eastern Aramaic, but with he in Western Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic. Which one do you think is more original? And why is this orthographic question at all relevant?