On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:39:34 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<
gpiotr@...> wrote:
>_I_ know it ain't compensatory, but many people believe it is. Sorry, I thought you had in mind something like Szemerényi's **-ers > **-err > *-e:r (plus the idea of analogical spread of lengthening to *wo:kWs, etc.).
I have in mind something along the lines of what Jens Rasmussen
claims: the lengthening was caused by the *-s itself, independent of
whether it later disappeared or not. Which is why I dragged in the
sigmatic aorist. And which is why I don't think the a:-stem's nom.sg.
*-ah2 is to be construed as *-e:h2. Maybe if there was an *-s there
once, but Latin -a (*-eh2) vs. -ix (*-ih2-s) makes me doubt that.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...