[tied] Re: Bog

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 14:23:30 -0000, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> Jens Eldegaard Rasmussen in his article "Winter's Law of Balto-

Slavic

> lengthening" concludes that Werner lengthening was blocked by a
> following sonorant (OCS <ognI> "fire", not *<agnI>), and that it
> further only took place in the syllable preceding the accent, i.e.

not

> under the accent (this would explain *wódr > wod-a) or twice removed
> from it (*maderós -> Lith. ma~daras, not *modaras). I have some
> problems with the accent-restriction (BS. e:d- and s:ed- are

accented

> on the lengthenes vowel at least in the sg. present forms), but the
> blocking by a following sonorant (usually -n(-) or -r(-)) seems real
> enough, and might even account for the case of <voda> (from *wódr,
> *wednós, after all).

How could that formal blocking rules, in your opinion, be related to
one of the 'technological' explanations of Winter's law -
compensational lenghtening after the loss of the glottalic component,
inherent to PIE 'voiced unaspirated stops' ( <d> being actually /`t/
etc.

Sergei