From: elmeras2000
Message: 36097
Date: 2005-02-01
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
[]
> What caused such lengthening? [referring to:]
> > *de:H3-tér-s > *déH3-to:r-s > *dóH3-to:r;
> > *de:H3-ter-ós > *déH3-tor-os > *dóH3-tr.-s .
In my opinion, the durative element of the meaning.
> So you believe that the nominative lengthening occurred before the
> advent of zero grade?
Yes, it should be ordered between the change of unaccented /e/ to
[o], but before the complete loss which would otherwise have been
the fate of an unaccented short vowel.
There is however a rule-ordering problem with the lengthened-grade
formations (as with reduplicated forms). I would assume now that the
two properties of the accent, viz. its stress part and its tonal
part, acted independently during the intermediate period when the
accent moved. That gives room for several possibilities, so that it
seems otiose to specify the chronology in too minute details.
Jens