On 2007-06-10 21:48, Sean Whalen wrote:
> Do you believe that this late anaptyxis would change
> *-dlom > -dulum instead of a much earlier series of
> changes including *-Cdtlo- > *-Cdelo-?
*-dl- changed into Lat. -ll- without an anaptyctic vowel. Anaptyxis is
regular in the clusters *-kl- (< *-kl-, *-tl-), *-bl- (< *-Bl-, *-Dl-)
and probably *-gl-, sporadic in *-pl-. Perhaps forms like <sella,
grallae, ra:llum> show the early spread of *-lo- replacing *-tlo- after
*d. Forms with anaptyxis would then represent a still later stratum,
with /u/ generalised from <speculum, cingulum>, etc.; this <-ulum>
merged with the Lat. reflex of diminutive *-elo-, resulting in the
etymological ambiguity of many words. To sum up, we have:
ra:strum 'rake' < *ra:d-trom
ra:llum 'scraper' < *ra:d-lom (pre-Lat. innovation)
ra:d-ula 'razor' (latest and fully productive in Latin)
I'll return to the question of the phonologically regular development of
*-tlo- after velars, but I'm rather busy at the moment, so it will have
to wait till tomorrow.
Piotr