Re: [tied] tt/st/ss

--- Piotr Gąsiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> Sean Whalen napisał(a):
>
> > Latin does show tt>ss>s after r.
> > I can't come to
> > any other conclusion than an intermediate tt>st,
> which
> > had similar (though probably not identical)
> metathesis
> > in Italic, Celtic, and Germanic.
>
> But PIE *-st- consistently remains -st- in those
> groups!

Of course. The likely response is that *s could
have become some non-dental or at least distinct from
*t>s before the fricative returned.

In Iranian, for example, us>us.>us^ but ut>us before
a stop. The most likely change, since I believe
retroflex C's were more common throughout IE languages
than commonly thought, is that all s>s. in the west;
when t>s a new distinction was made.

> > There's no reason to assume a PIE stage of
> tt>tst.
> > This would mean that d(h)t>tt already, but Baltic
> and
> > Slavic show that devoicing before voiceless stops
> > hadn't occurred yet (among others); Sanskrit shows
> > dht>ddh.
>
> Why?
>
> (1) You can have affrication independently of
> devoicing, e.g. -d(H)-t-
> realised as *-dz(H)-t- (or, as an alternative,
> restoration of voicing
> through analogy in some branches).

Again, there's no ev. anything like this happened in
PIE. For example, ts>ss in most IE, but not Sanskrit.
Should I then assume PIE t+s > ts+s and s>0/t_s in
Skt?

There's just a wide change that turns stops to
fricatives in some positions. Some even show kt>xt,
pt>ft, too.

> (2) What BSl. evidence points to the preservation of
> voice before *t?

Lengthening of a V before plain voiced stops. Of
course, sense you just said you could accept *dz+t
instead of only *ts+t, this doesn't really help my
case.

> >> The 'wrist' example
> >> is unconvincing, as
> >> the underlying root is more likely *wreik^-.
> >
> > Why? This would assume *wrikY+s+ti+s, what's
> the
> > first *s doing there? A meaning of 'bending
> forward,
> > rolling' seems to allow a match with Lith. risti
> 'to
> > roll'; but no other examples of *wrikYstis.
>
> Semantically, Germanic forms like OE wraxlian
> 'wrestle', wrigian 'turn,
> move', wrixl 'change' fit very well. The suffix
> -st(h2)-, whatever it
> is, occurs also in the Germanic and Balto-Slavic
> words for 'fist' and
> the Balto-Slavic 'finger' word (*pirs^ta- <
> *pr.sth2o-).

There is no PIE *penkWstis. The number was *pen
with complete plural *+t. In counting, *kWe was added
to the end, seen in *pentkW(e)ros 'group of five'
treated as either a whole word in which e remained, or
with the older regular rule which would delete *e in
that position.

Metathesis of tkW>kWt after PIE is seen in *pn,tkWus

> Hittite pankus but Latin *kWn,kWtus > cu:nctus.

Even in PIE there was some met.: adj. *p(e)ntkW+o+s >
*p(e)nkWtos (then analogy treating ordinals as pp,
seen clearly in *tr,yos + tos > *tr,tyos since a truly
old form in *+tos would be *tritos).

Therefore, PIE met.: *p(e)ntkW(e)+ti+s >
*p(e)ntkW+tis > *p(e)nkWttis (which I've also shown as
an ex. of tt>st previously).




____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/