[tied] Re: *-tro-/*-tlo-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

> These are not from PIE but the result of similar changes in a few
> branches. Even Iranian and Indic aren't exactly the same. H3 (xW)
> can cause this, too (* pYròxW >> prathamá-).
>
> In some languages both the x() before and C following are

important:

>
> Latin t>tH / x(Y)(+syl) _ r
>
> but
>
> Greek has NO t>tH / xY+syl _ r
>
> and others:
>
>
> *kYrixYtró+ > L cri:brum
>
> *mexY-trom mxY,-tr(e)+ > Skt má:tra:-, G métron 'measure'
>
> *xYer-xY-trom xYr,xY-tr(e)+ > Skt arítra- 'oar'; Lith irklas
>
> *xar-xW-trom > G árotron; L ara:trum 'plow'
>
> *ter-xY-trom > G téretron; L terebra 'auger'
>
> PIE *gWer-xW-trom 'throat' > Lith gerkle:;
> Grk *bérathrom > bérethron / bárathron 'pit'
>
> *kWen.-x-tro+ > Skt khanítra- 'spade'
>
> *pew-x-tro+ > Skt pavítra- 'filter, etc.'
>
> *mexY-tor+ > Skt má:tar- 'measurer'
>
>
> Why is there analogy in Greek téretron and métron when plenty of
> words ended in -ethron/-ethlon? Why does Indo-Iranian have so many
> alternants in -ta- vs -tha- but none in -tra- vs -thra- while the
> reverse is true in L and G?

I do not think there is any analogy at work in Gk. téretron. If the
laryngeal is "syllabified" (in the shape [x&], i.e. a sequence of a
reduced spirant followed by an ultra-short prop-vowel, the joint
duration being probably about the same as with the non-syllabified
variant), then the following /t/ is not in contact with the
laryngeal and so the aspiration does not rub off on the /t/ which is
left unaspirated). For métron I think we have to consider Saussure's
reduction *med-tLo- > *medLo-/*metLo-. I would have expected -l-,
but -r- is regular after /s/, so perhaps the variant with [tst] had
a finger in it: The regular forms would be *medlo-, *metlo- and
*metstro-, whence *metro- by contamination? In addition, -r- is
productive in Greek, so it may not be a problem that the form does
not have -l-. Then it could also be from *m&1-tlo-.

>
> It's impossible that any analogy would be so complete as to make

it

> look like separate rules in each language if it were in fact a PIE

change.

What's the problem here? We're talking about "schwa", the syllabic
realization of laryngeals. I do not see any major differences
between the branches concerning the distribution of syllabic and
asyllabic realization of the laryngeals, do you?

> Balto-Slavic may have ana. in all tool-words, but I find it hard

to

> believe that there's not even one word that shows retained -d(l)o-

due

> to a shift in meaning as when *gWer-xW-trom 'throat' > Lith gerkle:
> but Grk *bérathrom > bérethron / bárathron 'pit' or in tìltas.
>

You are not communicating. I simply do not understand what point you
are trying to make here. Could you try again?

Jens