Re: [tied] PIE *ts ?

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:35:46 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>However, there is something to gain if we push the "thorny" affrication as far back as possible: a uniform explanation of a variety of effects in several branches with recourse to a phoneme already reconstructed on other grounds. PIE *þ and *ð have always been an embarrassment, and I find *ts (*[dz]) preferable by far. Though not strictly PIE in this particular context, it would be old enough to explain correspondences like Lat. s : Av. xs^, s^, Gz^ : Skt. ks. : Gk. kt, pHtH, etc. as due to a _single_ common innovation (affrication plus metathesis).

Affrication coming first, I suppose (*ok^toh3 doesn't suffer from any
thorny effects). Given that tt > tst was already PIE (at least
subphonemically), similar effects for tk (and tp) and their aspirated
counterparts dhgh, dhbh are not unlikely to have occurred shortly
afterwards. I still prefer to avoid *þ and *ð as well as *ts and *dz
from PIE reconstructions: *h1ed-ti and *dhg^ho:m are sufficient.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...