Re: [tied] PIE Word Formation (2)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

Patrick:

> > This is no proof and not even any persuasive indication that PIE
> > -*ró _ever_ was "dissimilated" to -*ó, under any circumstances.
> > Dissimilate to *Ø??? Is that what "dissimilate" means??? Pure
> fantasy!
>
> *-ro- losing its *-r- because there is another liquid in the adjacent
> syllable is pure fantasy? It's called dissimilatory loss, like
> <library> becoming "lib'ary" or <secretary> "seck'etary". To quote
> H.H. Hock (_Principles of Historical Linguistic_, in the section
> devoted to dissimilation), "the only process which could be considered
> a 'complete' dissimilation is _dissimilatory loss_..."
>
> ***
> Patrick:

> Neither of the examples you cited are "dissimilatory loss"; they

are stupid, sloppy enunciation not recognized by any competent speaker
of English.

Isn't 'dissimilatory loss' an example of sloppy enunciation?

I think Patrick is right in thinking that they are not examples of
dissimilatory loss. Both words are naturally subject to reversible
syncopation. Iin the first case, you have library > libr'ry
(syncopation) > lib'ry (degemination) > lib'ary (desyncopation). Does
the second example occur in rhotic dialects? In now non-rhotic
dialects, you have secretary > secr't'ry (syncopation) > sec'et'ry
(rhoticisation) > sec'et'ry (desyncopation). (This resyncopates to
sec't'ry.)

> Patrick:
>
> *r eliminating a following *r over a syllabic boundary? I can sell

you the Brooklyn Bridge- cheap.

While not quite a counterexample, how about Middle French _abre_ tree
from Latin _arbor-_?

Richard.