Re: [tied] Re: On the ordering of some PIE rules

From: Sean Whalen
Message: 48954
Date: 2007-06-11

Here are some more I've found:

after r:

cne:owwyrst(e) 'knee-joint'

hro:t 'roof' (Goth), hro:st 'roost, perch'

wræ:stan 'twist, wrest'

þri:etan 'press, force', þri:ste 'daring, bold'

raþjo: 'number', rasta 'measure of distance' (Goth)

after K:

ci:dan, ce:ast 'quarrel, strife'

hladan 'heap up, etc.', hlæst 'load, burden'

hni:tan, gehnæ:st 'conflict, battle'

gni:dan 'rub', fy:rgna:st 'spark of fire'

wæ:dl 'barrenness', we:ste 'barren, waste'


nett, nestan 'spin'

hæ:st 'violent', Goth haifsts 'quarrel'

I think that besides s>s. after r. there was s>s. if
followed by KT>KT. and maybe KVi as:

*kaldhto+ > *kladhto+, etc.

kladhto+ .. ghnaidhto+ .. gaidhto+
klatto+ ... ghnaitto+ ... gaitto+
klasto+ ... ghnaisto+ ... gaisto+
kl.asto+ .. ghn.aisto+ .. gaisto+ . . gaisto+ . .


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

> On 2007-06-11 02:00, stlatos wrote:
> > 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?
> I don't know of any independent evidence of *th2
> behaving differently
> from *t in Germanic.

What if h2 hadn't been deleted yet?

But the primary evidence should come from the
perfect; it's the main source of *th2. It doesn't
prove a difference, but it makes it seem likely to me.

> > *gWhrendh+ti+ > *gWrinsti+ > OE gríst 'grinding'
> See below.
> > *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
> *trausta- may well contain *-sth2-o- as the second
> element.

How? Why?

> The primary
> meaning of <frist ~ first> in OE is not 'truce,
> etc.' but 'specified
> period of time, deadline', and *pres-sth2-o/i-
> 'standing before'
> accounts for the Germanic forms (cf. Skt.
> puroh-stHita).

Well, the primary is not always the best ev. for the

There's no PIE *pres-; *proxWbhuxwo+ > Greek has
xW>f before P with o>e when the conditioning factor is
no longer present; bh>b after f or m.

> Goth. bansts
> shows a /t/, but ON báss, OE bo:s(-ig), MLG banse,
> MDu. bo:s don't,
> which throws suspicion on PGmc. *-st- rather than
> *-s- in *Bansaz ~
> Banso:, whatever its etymology.

I think it shows that st and ts>ss could vary,
probably after n (not m). Of course, I can't rule out

> > That doesn't seem to work for *ksom+dhxY,to+ >
> *kondhto+ > *xanssa+
> >> ho:s.
> It does not apply here. When *-dH&1to- occurred as
> the second element of
> the compound, the schwa was not vocalised, and
> possibly deleted already
> in PIE. This loss in practically regular, and
> closely connected with the
> rule that turns *newo-g^nh1-o- into *newog^no- (Gk.
> neognos).

Forms with and without h1 appear independent of
placement in compounds; it seems to me that it's a
stative morpheme.

I disagree with that rule.

> > 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?
> I don't "believe" it. I consider such a possibility.
> If *[tst] is PIE
> and *ss "Western IE", the loss of a vocalised
> laryngeal reflex in *-t&t-
> may have produced a new *tt cluster handled
> differently (at least in
> Gmc.) from inherited *tst but similarly to *pt, *kt
> > *ft, xt. This may
> also apply to a few specifically Germanic formations
> with the full grade
> of the root plus the *-ti- suffix, like *xaisti-
> (Eng. (be)hest) from
> *xait- and *Grinsti- from *GrinD-.

Well, I evaluate it as: are there any examples of
tt>ss after r?; all my examples seem to fall into a
few categories that suggest retroflex s. (and if PIE
had n. it may help to identify them); other IE
languages have forms with full grade, especially if
Ke>Ka (Latin aestus, caestus).

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.