Re: [tied] PIE *ts ?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE *ts ?


> I started thinking more about *xrtkos and I realized that if vocalic
> *r were, say, a retroflex or even an alveolar approximant, I could
> imagine the following normally dental *t actually being retracted to
> an alveolar position in this particular etymon. I'm sure *r was not
> dental and even when I pronounce the word with a simple alveolar
> approximant (without retroflexing), I still find it hard to resist an
> alveolar *t. Could this be a factor?
>
> Thoughts? Have I erred again? I'm waiting for the 50-tonne weight to
> fall on my head...

Thud! The "bear" etymon can't have resisted affrication (in post-PIE times and in non-Anatolian branches). Skt. r.ks.a-, Iranian *r.s^a-, Lat. ursus all show the expected sibilant (*h2r.tk^os > *h2r.tsk^os > *h2r.k^tsos > *h2rk^sos, IMO).

Piotr