Re: [tied] Olsen's Rule [was: Ploughs]

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 29883
Date: 2004-01-22

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:03:25 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>I'd like to discuss it, actually. It's ingenious, but I have my doubts.
>One uneasy aspect of this explanation, as far as I'm concerned, is that
>it depends so heavily on the testimony of Latin (<po:culum> vs.
><pa:bulum>), but doesn't work consistently even there. Apart from the
>*-tlom- suffix and the suggested interpretation of <ple:b-> (and Gk.
>ple:tHu-) as *pleh1-tw- (I have to say I particularly like this one), is
>there any independent reason for thinking that *tH developed into a
>voiced sound in Latin?

If the voiced aspirates passed through an unvoiced stage in Latin, then
*all* unvoiced aspirates -> fricatives developed into voiced sounds in
Latin medially (including also *s > *z > r).


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