Re: [tied] i-verbs in Baltic and Slavic

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2006-05-26 08:24, Mate Kapoviæ wrote:
>
> > On Sri, svibanj 24, 2006 9:15 pm, Piotr Gasiorowski reèe:
> >> There is more similarity in the development of Balto-Slavic and
> >> Indo-Iranian (where we also have the early and complete merger of

the *k

> >> and *kW series and the RUKI rule), while the "satellite" languages,
> >> Armenian and Albanian, show various idiosyncratic developments.
> >
> > The merger of the *k and *kW does not really some like a real "satem"
> > change, since it does not happen in Arm. and Alb. apparently.
>
> I didn't claim is was "pan-Satem".

Another case for labiovelars being distinct fairly late (after most
syllabic consonants > V(C)) is the distinction between gHd and gWHd
(or whatever you prefer) in Iranian (xs^ and Gz^ with gWHd > gHz^
before y so gWHdy > xs^y).

> > What about Sanskrit -i(:)r-/-u(:)r- developments, which were connected
> > with PIE labiovelars (-u(:)r- comes supposedly not only after the

labials

> > but after PIE labiovelars as well)?
>
> This is controversial. The /i/ development may also occur after
> labiovelars, as in Skt. giri- 'mountain'. In my opinion the outcome
> after k, g, gH (of whatever origin) was variable and may have depended
> on other factors as well, e.g. the influence of vowel of the next
> syllable (cf. <gurú-> 'heavy').

I agree that that short *& (or whatever V you think developed in
r.HV) needed to be preceded and followed by (gW-u for example). Long
&:r < r: < r.H didn't take the following V into account.