--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2006-08-26 01:22, Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> > Iranian has rules that both change dentals to velars
> > and nasalize velars in non-nasal environments. There
> > is no reason to assume *n in the paradigm.
>
> Avestan has nasalisation rules like *-asa- > *-aha- > -aNha- and
*-asra-
> > *-ahra- > *-aNhra- > -aNra-, but the Gath. change of *a > & betrays
> an original nasal, not secondary nasalisation (which doesn't occur in
> final syllables anyway), sice in the latter case the *a would have
> retained its quality. The development is the same as in the acc.pl.
> *-o(:)ns > *-anh > Gath. -&:Ng. I know of no other possible source of
> the auslaut sequence in <xV&:Ng>.
There's no reason to think that *L nasalized at the same time as the
outcome of *s. I specifically mentioned Pashto nwar as an example of
nasalization occurring at a different (post-PIr) time.
Since there are no other final *ls how would you be able to tell it
couldn't come from that and not *ns?
As I've said before I think H2=x and l>L before that as well as *x <
*s in Ir. So *(tl.x > tL.x > tuLx in PIndIr) explaining tul- in Indo;
then L>N in PIr so explaining tun- in tunuvant- in Old Persian.
As you probably know h>Nh is unlikely; why not s>x in various
locations and x>xx between front V? xx or GG is more likely to become
Nx > Nh than h itself. In Ossetian *s>*x then velar > uvular; *x is
more likely to provide the forms seen there and in all Ir languages
than PIr *h.
The same thing can be seen in Armenian; *s>*x>kH in some
environments then remaining *x>h and later h>0 in other places.