On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 02:45:00 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer <
mcv@...> wrote:
>Piotr seems to have access to Olsen '88 or perhaps other relevant papers
>(the articles on -idus ['92] and laryngeal aspiration ['94] from the
>bibliograpgy to the Armenian book look like they might be relevant), but
>unfortunately I don't.
>
>Is it possible to have a quick update on the main points (e.g. what about
>poculum and pabulum)?
Apparently not. OK, then I'm forced to ask a number of potentially stupid
questions.
The "instrumental suffix" seems to be a thematized extension of the suffix
*-ter ~ *-tel, which also comes in two flavours as far as the final liquid
is concerned, but which does not have, as far as I know, a variant with
initial *dh. So it makes sense to expect only *-tl-o- and *-tr-o-, while
any apparent cases of *-dhro-/*-dhlo- must be only that, apparent, or at
least be secondary.
So what other evidence is there for the voiced variant *-dhlo-/*-dhro-
besides Latin and Slavic?
Now, I can see how *th would give a voiced reflex in Latin, but I don't
think there's a way *th could have given /d/ in Slavic.
Calvert Watkins in Ramat & Ramat points to Bartholomae's law as the culprit
for the variation *t ~ *dh in the suffix under discussion. I think that's
an excellent idea.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...