Re: [tied] n/r (was: PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with')

----- Original Message -----
From: "P&G" <G&P@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] n/r (was: PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with')


> > Patrick:
> > there is _no_ nasal infix. There is a nasal suffix which, under certain
> > conditions, undergoes metathesis.
>
> That may depend on the time you are talking about. I think it is
> incontrovertible that IE languages inherit forms with nasal infixes (e.g.
> *iu-n-g-o). But I accept that in theory these could have arisen from
> something else at an earlier stage.
> What would you say these conditions are, under which a nasal suffix
> metathesises?
>
> Peter


***
Patrick:

I do not know and I am not sure that we ever will.

We could look at the effects for a hint and maybe something plausible will
occur to some one of us.

1) An initial syllable closed with a stop is now closed with a nasal:
*pet-nV- > *pen-tV-

2) The second syllable now begins with a stop rather than a nasal: *pen-to-

The first hypothesis that come to my mind is 'economy of effort' but my
subjective feelings are worthless here.

Is there someone on the list who really is knowledgeable above these matters
who could tell us is

*pen-to- requires less energy to articulate than

*pet-no- ?


***