[tied] Re: -tlo- vs -tro- (was: rtl)

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

> On 2007-07-07 03:55, stlatos wrote:
>
> >> Just out of curiosity: why not *sjouh1-mo-?
> >
> > Between vowels xY>y and xW>v ( > w in most) so xY
> (h1) wouldn't give
> > the correct forms. There are many examples of
> these changes...
>
> I don't agree that *h1 was a palatal fricative or
> that it produced a
> palatal glide between vowels, but that's irrelevant
> in this case. In
> *sjouh1-mo- the *h1 is not intervocalic.

Did I use this as an example of that one rule? Did you read the
whole reply? I described the changes to this word in another rule.
This xY>y change was given to explain why there's no xY>y in the root
when the conditions are right, like OHG siuwan, or *suxW > *suve+.

I suppose you believe that uXe > ue > uwe in all IE; where does
*dov- come from? Why Skt rayis not *ra-is > *re:s?

I've given even more examples before; if you have some other
explanation what is it?

*mexY+ 'measure, be (so) big'
*memoxYe > *memoye > Skt mima:ya
*mexYo+ > *meyo+ > Skt -maya- 'made of _'

*gWoxWu+ > *gWovu+ > Arm kov (no w>gW>g); most v>w earlier so *gWowu+s

> *gWo:u+s 'cow'

*gWoxWu+to+ met> *gWouxWto+ > OE cwe:ad; (Skt gu:tha- either from weak
grade or o>u between gW-xW or with u in addition).

> Furthermore, we should expect a
> laryngeal of any colour to drop out in this type of
> derivative in
> accordance with de Saussure rule (and Rasmussen's
> revision thereof),
> eventually yielding *sjoumo-.
> My personal view (by no means communis opinio, but
> compatible with the
> analysis of the 'seam' word) is that *ou was
> monophthongised to *u:
> before syllable-final *h2 and *h3 (but not before
> *h1), and that this
> monophthongisation was early enough to affect
> "O-infixed" derivatives.

What about:

*spyuxto+ >> L spu:ta:re

*spyouxmo+ > *spyaxmo+ > Av spa:ma- 'spittle'

> Thus, for example, *dHOuh2-m(n)-ó- > *dHu:(h2)mó- >
> fu:mus, dHu:má-,
> dymU etc. In this way I can account for the absence
> of expected
> laryngeal breaking in Greek (which would have given
> pre-Gk. **tHwa:mos
> if the PIE input had been simply *dHuh2-mó-).

In Greek *ux > *wax only happens at morpheme boundaries; the x had
already disappeared after u elsewhere.

Nouns in *-mo+s also just had zero-grade; this seems to be one.