Re: [tied] Helios

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2006-08-26 00:59, Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> > Since *sulnika existed in PSlav the possibility
> > should be examined. This would be the only case of
> > original ul-n in PGer. If l>L (velarized) in some
> > cases *(melgY- > meLg- > miluk-) including after u
> > there's no problem if Ln>nn then ln>ll.
>
> Why wasn't it velarised in *fulna- > *fulla- or *wulno: > *wullo:?
> Positing arbitrary velarisation just to "explain" a single aberrant

form

> is a non-solution.

I said "original" to mean just that: PIE *ul not ul from *l., etc.
There is nothing impossible about my explanation. The change of l>L
in specific environments in different IE languages is necessary.

The change of 0>u in miluks is unexplained; the *ln>nn in sunna
also unexplained but just happens to occur after u. Since o and u
are often associated with L in other languages (and there was no o
in PGer at the time) why not say "l velarized before velar and after
u" and see if it works? Then the changes 0>u/L_K and C.>uC happen
next.