Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:22:19 +0200, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>21-04-2004 12:08, Sergejus Tarasovas wrote:
>
>> One would expect *-stu:. Or you don't accept this *pt > *st rule in Slavic?
>
>I'd be loath not to derive Slavic *pero from *pterom. As we both know,
>the evidence for the rare development of *pt > *st has been contested,
>and I'm willing to accept the possibility that *pt- > *p- root-initially

There's *p(&2)truh2-yo- > stryj "uncle" word-initially.
Not that I wouldn't be loath not to derive Slavic *pero from
*pterom either... In the case of pero/stryj an obvious
solution is (1) pt- > t-; (2) p&2t- > pt-; (3) pt > st-, but
I don't know if that holds for other examples.

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