Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o


>>Hmm. Concerning Greek pous 'foot,' the orthography indicates that
>>this was a secondarily lengthened /o/ (that is, after original */o:/
>>became /O:/). So perhaps the Greek form was earlier pods or pots?

>poús is the Attic form, elsewhere we have pó:s. I'm not
>sure, but it looks like *po:ds could be simplified early to
>*po:s, which then stays, or (in Attic) remained as *po:ds,
>which is then affected by Osthoff's law (-V:CC > -VCC, so
>*po:ds > *pods, and then *pods > po:2s [written <pous>] with
>compensatory lengthening).

I have come myself to a similar conclusion but some things are not so clear
to me. Isn't Osthoff's Law traditionally only posited for -V:RC, not for
every -V:CC? Are there any more cases of -V:CC > -VCC and -VCC > -V:C (with
the first C being /d/ or something similar and -V: being <ou> or <ei>)?

Mate