From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 9138
Date: 2001-09-07
>--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:Well, I've been having second thoughts about the glottalic theory for
>> 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.