From: dgkilday57
Message: 66691
Date: 2010-10-05
>Buck's view was that *-dH-t- regularly became *-ddH-, but that in most cases this became *-dt- by analogy with other *-to-formations, and that *-ddH- regularly became Italic *-st-, while *-dt- of course proceeded through *-tt- to Italic *-ss-. It makes sense if we can justify the *-dt- as resulting ONLY when the word in question was still felt to be participial.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > In Latin, both *-sr- and *-dHr- would have given /-br-/, and in view of
> > what we know about Italic phonology there is no earthly reason why *dH
> > should have developed into /st/ in that branch or any language
> > genetically close to it. Indeed, we get -d- in <aede:s> 'hearth'. The
> > morphological cluster *-dH-t- gives both /-ss-/ and /-st-/ in Latin
> > (iussus vs. aestus), and there are too few examples to be sure which of
> > these developments is "regular".
>
> Probably the latter, since <jussus> could have been influenced by the perfect <jussi:>.