Re: On the ordering of some PIE rules

> >> And how can your "allophone rearrangement" hypothesis be tested?
> >> Does it make any predictions different from the standard theory
> >> of GL as a Germanic sound change?
> >
> > I made it with the intention of simplifying the existing set of
> > rules so if it does predict a different outcome, which it might,
> > it is not intentional. Therefore I think it should judged on the
> > lesser criterion of Occam instead.
>
> Isn't the traditional scenario more parsimonious? It makes no
> untestable assumptions about PIE allophones. And I'd like to repeat
> my question, slightly rephrased: does your hypothesis explain
> anything that the traditional account doesn't?
>

Germanic spirantizes stops before stops: haft-s
Sabellic does too: scriftas, screihtas
Old Irish does too: recht
Iranian does too: bust,
and it does more: fs^umans, fDroi

Latin doesn't: scriptum
Sanskrit doesn't: buddh-

Germanic is irregular here: it should be -fT-, not -ft-. Why?
It seems to me eaasier to comprehend if this context (stops before
stops) is where the Iranian spirantization of stops started, before
spreading into other contexts, and the same goes for Germanic.


Torsten