latin geminate "ll" ( it was: Re: [tied] Re: *g'(h)- > d as aberran

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
> > 12-05-2004 06:27, alex wrote:
> >
> >
> > > which is the reflex of Slavic *olno in Slavic languages today

and

> what
> > > does it mean.
> >
> > (Archaic or dialectal) Polish l/oni (the phrase <l/on'skiego

roku>

> is
> > still used), OCS lani 'last year' < *olni.
> >
> > Piotr
>
> Thank you Piotr. Seeing that I don't wonder that Walde-Hoffmann

does

> not try to make any relationship between Italic "ollus" and Slavic
> *olno; I don't guess there is any relationship either and if one

try

> to connect Slavic *olno with *ollo(>ollus) the basis for a such
> connection should be just for the phonetical reasons and no
> semantical reasons; but even (for the pressumed assimillation ln >
> ll) this is a very weak one.

The assimilation -ln- > -ll- is well established. It is regular,
though it must have stopped as some stage before syncopation (whence
_ulna_ < *olina cf. Greek olene: and various Celtic forms).

> If I recall correct, Szemerenyi is very
> reserved for speaking about some dissimilations/assimilations when
> there is just a two languages relationship and a thirth language at
> least cannot be called for show if there is a such
> assimilation/dissimilation.

Irregular assimilations and dissimilations are another matter.

Richard.