Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:28:07 +0200, Mate Kapovic
<mkapovic@...> wrote:

>From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
>> There's *p(&2)truh2-yo- > stryj "uncle" word-initially.
>> Not that I wouldn't be loath not to derive Slavic *pero from
>> *pterom either... In the case of pero/stryj an obvious
>> solution is (1) pt- > t-; (2) p&2t- > pt-; (3) pt > st-, but
>> I don't know if that holds for other examples.
>
>Did you mix something up? Shouldn't that be *pt- > p- and *ph2t- > st-?
>We could speculate that first *pt- > p- as in *pterom > pero, while we still
>have *pHtruHyo- and after *pt- > p- we get *pHt- > *pt- and this new *pt-
>yields st- now.

That's exactly what I meant.

A dedicated soundlaw *ph2t- > st- would be a bit too ad hoc.

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