Re: [tied] Re: Gypsies again

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 01:39:42 -0500, Patrick Ryan
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
>To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 12:51 AM
>Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Gypsies again
>
>
>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:13:32 -0500, Patrick Ryan
>> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>>
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:34:24 -0500, Patrick Ryan
>> >> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >And, in the case of pá:t?
>> >>
>> >> *pó:ds, with lengthening caused by nom. *-s after consonant.
>> >>
>> >***
>> >Patrick:
>> >
>> >I am surprised. Why would -*Cs cause the preceding vowel to be long?
>>
>> Also *-Ch2.
>
>***
>Patrick:
>
>Well, that certainly _explains_ it.

In a way. There were only two common fricatives in the
language, *s and *h2. Both cause lengthening of a preceding
vowel if one or more consonants intervene.

For resonants, the development is common enough. It
happened again independently in Slavic and Sanskrit.

>***
>
>> >I thought you might explain it by way of compensation.
>>
>> Compensation of what?
>
>***
>Patrick:
>
>Loss of final -*s.

There is no loss of final *-s in *pó:ds.

>***
>
>> >And do you not mean *po:ts?
>
>***
>Patrick:
>
>Again, did you not mean *po:ts?

I spell it */pó:ds/.


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