From: tgpedersen
Message: 46147
Date: 2006-09-20
>*-u.gná -> *-ug.gná- -> *-ug.gá- ? Nah. Let's leave it at 'perhaps'.
> On 2006-09-19 23:41, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > I just don't feel a rule of the type -Tn- > -TT- makes sense
> > phonetically. -nT- > -TT- does.
>
> It was *-bn-, *-dn-, *-gn- > *-bb-, *-dd-, *-gg- (devoiced later).
> Just why doesn't it make sense phonetically? Cf. Pali nagga,
> soppa < OInd. nagna-, svapna-. The fact that the Germanic
> assimilation operated before an accented vowel suggests that
> it had to do with changing syllabification in early Proto-Germanic.
> In a sequence like *-u.gná- the stop was attracted into the
> preceding syllable (provided that it was originally light, i.e.
> contained a short vowel), perhaps becoming ambisyllabic/geminated
> as a result: *-ug.gná-; then the cluster was simplified, producing
> *-ug.gá-.
>
> > I'd prefer something like *Nd -> n.t (the stop is unvoiced, soOne more thing: Lachmann's law, same thing. Unvoiced unaspirated
> > the preceding nasal is unvoiced) -> nt/ht/tt (for Germanic
> > substrate words). For that purpose I'm ready to steal the
> > examples Kortlandt uses in his defense of preglottalisation
> > of voiced unaspirated.
>
> But Kluge's Law affects all original phonation types, i.e. *t,But it ate the evidence! That doesn't convince me.
> *d and *dH alike, and remember that after a heavy nucleus
> the sequence -tn- (with this order of segments!) survives.