From: Piotr Gasiorowski
> Wouldn't the tx>tHx>tH remove it from undergoing tt>ss? How do youI don't know of any independent evidence of *th2 behaving differently
> know what features or sounds block the rule ahead of time?
> *gWhrendh+ti+ > *gWrinsti+ > OE gríst 'grinding'See below.
> *prix+ > friþ 'peace', frist- / first 'truce, etc.'*trausta- may well contain *-sth2-o- as the second element. The primary
> *bhondh-xY-to+ 'binding (place), stall' > Goth bansts 'barn', ON báss
> *drou+dhxY,t()+ 'putting trust/confidence in' > traust
> That doesn't seem to work for *ksom+dhxY,to+ > *kondhto+ > *xanssa+It does not apply here. When *-dH&1to- occurred as the second element of
> Of course it does: r was in the coda, when r>0 its mora remained:It's Slavic *rydjI < *ru:dja- (POl. rydz). There's some kind of Slavic
> Even if you disagree, what about OCS ryz^dI?
> So, you now believe tt>st independent of PIE rules, but you're usingI don't "believe" it. I consider such a possibility. If *[tst] is PIE
> this to argue against my version by placing it after a supposed *tst>ss?