Re: [tied] PIE *ts ?

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:05:49 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
>
>> And khth- the normal development of *dzg^h in Greek? I don't think so.
>
>Why not? /kt/ ~ /ks/ ~ /sk/ ~ /k/ from reduced or metathesised clusters vary dialectally in some Greek roots, and so do /pHtH/ and /ps/ (pHtHisis ~ psisis , pHtHino: ~ psino:).

Any examples *not* before /i/? ti > si is a well-known Greek
soundlaw, which may have been sporadically applied to *tHi > si as
well (not *dhi, I don't think).

>Note also <kHtHes> (Skt. hyah.), where <kHtH-> evidently developed out of *kHj- < *g^Hj- via fortition involving some sort of affricate (*kHj- > *kHts'- > *kHtH-, cf. *pj- > *pts'- > pt-).
>
>Assuming that *dzg^H either lost the first element of the cluster or underwent metathesis, we should expect to find the following variants:
>
>*dzg^H- > *g^H- > kH-, as in <kHamai>
>*dzg^H- > *kHts- (= *kHts'-?) > kHtH- (~ ks-?), as in <kHtHo:n>
>
>Like <ps-> in <psino:> (which is basically Cretan), <ks-> would have been a rare regional variant, and the chances of its being documented would not have been very high.

It's straightforward to explain khth- out of of ghdh-, and in view of
Toch tkam. and Hitt. tekan, taknas I see no reason to push the
affrication underlying Skt. ks.- all the way back to PIE.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...