Re: [tied] Re: IE prefix "*s"

16-12-03 23:19, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> Unless he was incompletely quoted, Rosetti fails to explain why we have <e>
> instead of <ie> in inel (ânel). Lat. anellu should have given *âniel,
> which is the pre-stage if inel. I would think attested ânel is is a
> mixture of regular *âniel and rhotacized ârel (the loss of /j/ after /r/ is
> regular).

Is there anything wrong with *âniél > *ân^él (no rhotacism because of
the palatality) > *âinél (too late to be rhotacised) > ânél/inél, with
variable outcome of diphthong reduction?

Piotr