On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:06:08 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<
gpiotr@...> wrote:
>I think that's wrong. Before PIE *e we should get Proto-Tocharian palatalised *s' (as in the numeral "ten", TB s'ak). I'd expect the following development (more or less):
>
>*deiwo- > *s'@ywV- > TA *s'ew, TB *s'aiwe
You're right about the development PToch *äywe > A <ew>, B. <aiwe> (I
had mistakenly looked at the development of *new(y)os > ñu/ñuwe).
For the initial consonant, I was following Adams, more or less, but
the question is a thorny one.
Adams posits a First Palatalization, which gives *d > ts, as in TochAB
tsär- "to separate" < *der-. There is, however, a Second
Palatalization, which also affects the result of the First
Palatalization, giving PToch *ts', which subsequently gives TochA.
<s'>, TochB. <ts> (TochA tsäm- ~ s'äm- "to cause to grow" < *dem-,
TochA tsär- ~ s'är- "to separate"). Sometimes, however, the effect of
the First Palatalization was undone analogically, restoring *t, which
under the Second Palatalization gives *c, and then, according to
Adams, then sometimes shows up "under certain, not always clear,
conditions" as <s'>, as in the word for "10" (TochA. <s'äk>, B.
<s'ak>).
On the other hand, Werner Winter's position is that there are no two
separate palatalizations, but that *t and *dh give <t>, <c>
(palatalized) [except that *ty > ts], while *d (including *dh before
voiced aspirate, in a Tocharian version of Grassmann's Law) gives
unpalatalized <ts> (or zero), palatalized <s'> (but often <ts> in
Toch.B).
Adams, in a footnote, also summarizes the positions of v. Windekens
(*d palatalizes as ts, *t and *dh as c), and Anreiter (*ty and *dhy
give ts, *t, *d and *dh before front vowel always give c). There is
also Evangelisti's position, discussed by Werner, that *t palatalizes
as c, *d as s' and *dh as ts.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...