Re: Comparative Notes on Hurro-Urartian, Northern Caucasian and Indo

From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60456
Date: 2008-09-28

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
>> To start with, I think such a thing like -tl- is impossible in PIE.
> While it may not have been very stable, it does seem to turn up as
> zero grade.
> From *stelh2 'broad(en)' (Pokorny #1885 pp1018-9) we have Latin
> _latus_, _la:tus_.
Watkins does not seem to accept that.
Maybe somebody can provide more explanations
why it's rejected by some people.
In any case, it's not a case of -tl-+ vowel,
but a case of -tl.H2- (or -t°lH2-)
So it does not count.
Here l. is center of syllable.

> From *stel 'put', 'place' (Pokorny #1886 pp1019-1020) we have Old
> Latin _stlocus_ > Latin _locus_ 'place'.
Watkins does not seem to accept that.
As a matter of fact,
how do you explain the vocalic scheme 0_o_o
st_lH2ok-os ??
It looks real strange.


> From *telh2 'carry, bear, suffer' (Pokorny #1973 pp1060-1) we have the
> Greek _tle:nai_ 'bear, suffer', with verbal adjective _tle:tos_, also
> in Latin as _la:tus_ 'borne', corresponding to the simple verb
> _tollo:_ 'raise', which however has supine _subla:tum_.
These two examples are not relevant.
I suppose the PIE phonetic was t°lH2-to'-s
with stress on the o and a weak vocoid between t and l to ease up.
The simplification in latin t°lH2 > la- is a late Latin feature for me.

The initial question was about -tl-o- > *tr-o-
which I consider automatic at PIE stage.
in this position -l- is not used as center of syllable.