--- Piotr Gasiorowski <
gpiotr@...> wrote:
> On 2006-08-28 04:53, Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> > ... The change x>h not
> > h>x is better at explaining the distribution.
>
> All this is taking us nowhere. The original question
> in this sub-thread
> was whether the nasalisation in GAv. xV&:Ng was just
> an inner Avestan
> curiosity or a genuine reflex of inherited *n. You
> have already admitted
> that the nasal is old enough for the PIr.
> reconstruction *hvanh (in
> standard notation, whatever the phonetic details)
I haven't changed any opinion; the order is exactly
the same as I've described before (see below). The
change is L>N and N>n only in some (such as Old
Persian). As I've written before:
Also, I have the change l > L (velar) before x in
the next syllable (I believe x = H2) and syllabic L >
uL as in tul- "lift" from *tlx-. In the rule list
I've
made this also must come after retroflexing.
This velarizing is also seen in evidence from
Iranian with L merging with N. Later N > n in Old
Persian (tunuvant- "strong, having power").
Similarly seen in Avestan new analogical gen.
*suxáls
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com