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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "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? 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>)?

I would guess that in Greek the vowel timbre of the old long open o-
vowel of 'foot' has taken over the *timbre* (but not the quantity)
of the closed o-vowel of the case forms with short o. This may even
be Common Greek, for also the Doric omega may reflect an old closed
long o-vowel.

Jens