--- Piotr Gasiorowski <
gpiotr@...> wrote:
> On 2007-06-10 21:02, Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> > Why would T-th > ss?
>
> The laryngeal is not relevant. It's just *tt > *ss
> (via *tst > *tss vel
> sim.)
Wouldn't the tx>tHx>tH remove it from undergoing tt>ss? How do you
know what features or sounds block the rule ahead of time?
> > Didn't you already agree that
> > rT-t might not > rss?
>
> Not impossible, though (so far) based on shaky
> evidence.
But you accepted *kr,ttis > hyrst, *kartto+ > hearste- without any
qualms; only when you disagreed with the intermediate *ts stage I
proposed did you say there was no T+t > s+t.
I don't mean to offend you, but it's hard for me to wonder what
evidence seems unconvincing: after r, K, and perhaps other obstruents
there's only st.
It's true that some of these:
From OE hyrst, rúst, wrist, frist, þríst, gríst; ON þrysta, traust;
etc; I'd say that Tt>st>s.t. after r. whether directly or not (all PIE
s>s. beforehand), preventing st>ts>ss.
aren't certain (and fy:st, toft), but what's wrong with those like:
*gWhrendh+ti+ > *gWrinsti+ > OE gríst 'grinding'
*prix+ > friþ 'peace', frist- / first 'truce, etc.'
*bhondh-xY-to+ 'binding (place), stall' > Goth bansts 'barn', ON báss
'cow-stall"
*drou+dhxY,t()+ 'putting trust/confidence in' > traust
> > I'd say probably:
> >
> > late PIE *xYrudhro+to+s > *xYrurdhtos > *rurstaz
> then
> > dissimilation.
>
> Not so probable unless you can cite other *-to-
> derivatives of *-ro-
> adjectives.
In late PIE they made *to+ der. out of anything, often with met.
correcting odd clusters, including *gWoxWu+to+ > *gWouxWto+ 'cow dung'.
There are several other odd late rules, some I've mentioned, that
take a feature of earlier PIE and extend it beyond its limits. Most
of these were temporary, not productive in any later IE language.
> The stative verb stem was *h1rudH-éh1-
> 'be red, blush' (Lat.
> rube:re, OIr. ruidid), so perhaps *h1rudH-&1-tó- is
> a solution, with the
> vocalised laryngeal syncopated too late for the
> assibilation of the
> second stop to apply
That doesn't seem to work for *ksom+dhxY,to+ > *kondhto+ > *xanssa+
> ho:s.
> (but the secondary *-tt-,
> violating [pre-]PGmc.
> phonotactics, adjusted to *st). This, however, does
> not account for the
> length of the vowel in OE.
Of course it does: r was in the coda, when r>0 its mora remained:
rur>ru_>ruu.
Even if you disagree, what about OCS ryz^dI?
So, you now believe tt>st independent of PIE rules, but you're using
this to argue against my version by placing it after a supposed *tst>ss?