Re: *pYerkW+

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "gprosti" <gprosti@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "gprosti" <gprosti@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen <stlatos@> wrote:

> > Of course, this is part of a broad rule, so C-ry/rw/ly/my/etc.
> would
> > be fine.

> Are you saying that *C-ry/rw/ly/my/etc. give *C-yy/C-ww
> (sporadically or otherwise)? If so, what is your evidence for this?

Yes. The first indication came from studying the comparative forms
of adjectives, mainly in Sanskrit.

> Also, comparatives show C-nyos > C-i-yos (among other changes).

The retention of the old syllable boundary between whatever C and
the n>y>i puts the new V in its own syllable. Therefore, in Sanskrit
I saw i/u > +long between syllables unless followed by a syl.+tone.