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

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:44:59 +0200, Mate Kapovic
<mkapovic@...> wrote:

>
>----- 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?

Yes.

>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>)?

The only slightly similar case I can think of right now is
oûs (Doric ô:s), o:tós "ear" (but the -u- in the nom. is
etymological: *h2ó:us-s).

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