--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> Slavic has generalized -dl-. The question is why there was -dl-
in the
> first place. Bartholomae's law can be written as Xht > Xdh, so
all we have
> to do to explain the Slavic phenomenon is [...]
That's not the way I see it. The easy way is to accept Slavic -dl-
as the reflex of IE *-tl-, thus identifying it exactly with
Lithuanian -kl-. I would find it very strange if the aspirated
variant had been generalized and had taken this form, not to mention
both at the same time. But then again, some existing languages *are*
very strange.
> Did it apply to PIE as a whole, or was it a pre-Vedic
> (c.q. pre-Slavic) thing only? Was the working of the law undone
by later
> analogy or was its scope limited (in which contexts?) to begin
with?
It is certainly pan-IE, for it has been overgrown by analogy in all
languages that can show the difference. Its fate is like
Bartholomae's law in Avestan which was simply forgotten the second
time around, as when aogda was replaced by aoxta.
On the following Armenian stuff I need to ask higher up before I
make a fool of myself. Still, if intervocalic *t is better preserved
after aw than after other vocalic segments, the same might apply yo
*dh?
Jens