Re: T>T.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "stlatos" <stlatos@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 2:14 AM
> Subject: [tied] T>T. (was: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we
> discussing?)
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
>
> > I disagree. If there was no sx-, what caused s.- in Khowar s.òr
> > 'salty'?
> >
> > An x (H2) caused dental > retro. in others (khowàr; atsHaareetáa;
> > kAmvìri), approximately:

> In Armenian *pYaL-x-tyáx > *faL-x-yo:s > *xWaLyx > aLik`.

> In In-Ir pm: > mm; C, > uC as usual in Khowar, but Indic:
>
> *mm,kWttí+
> *mm,kW_tí+
> *mm,kWití+ (a space is filled in by the following V)
> *mm,kYití+
> *mm,c^ití+
> *muc^ití+ (m, > u by P like ubha-, puxDa-)
> *muc^utí+ (compare u-i dis/assim like chubuka-, cibuka-, etc.)
>
> ***
>
> Patrick:
>
> OK, you have convinced me. You have a Khowar dictionary.

The forms are marked as khowàr; atsHaareetáa; kAmvìri; other In-Ir;
and Armenian. It's by comparing them that the rules to kh; atsH; kv
can be found.

> Now, what bearing does any of this have on what we have been discussing?

Whether sx- or s- in 'salt', if T>T. by x in Khowar and others, etc.
You don't have to believe all the rules, but do you have any other
explanation?

For example, what causes the word 'moth, butterfly' to become atsH
pHaat.uríi; kh pulmund.ùk; kv prüs^pùlik if not my explanation?

> > *pYì-pY(a)L-x-tó:n (and weak:)
> > *pYì-pY(a)L-x-tn+ 'moth, butterfly' > *pu-p(a)Lx-t.n.+ >

*pxu-pL(a)n.t.+

> >
> > *pxu-pLan.t.+ > *pHuLpaat.+ > *pHaat.uL+ > atsH pHaat.uríi
> >
> > *pxupL,n.t.+ > *pupuLn.t.+ +ìk dim.
> >
> > *pupuLn.t.ìk > *puLpun.t.ìk > kh pulmund.ùk
> >
> > *pupuLn.t.ìk > *pupün.t.Lìk > *pün.t.puLìk > kv prüs^pùlik

It seems met. is needed both from comparing the related languages
and from internal evidence (such as kv *u-ü-i > ü-u-i since ü comes
from umlaut).