--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
>
> He noted that the -t doesn't spirantize.
> Could this be do to the same reason that Germanic
> stops didn't (initally) spirantize after s-? (Of
> course, sk- became S and sx later on in English and
> Dutch).
>
The general principle, as I've understood it, is that historical
changes/rules start in certain contexts and are generalized from
there, by some sociological mechanism that makes people generalize a
'hot' (sociologically 'good') variant, a 'shibboleth' mechanism, in
other words. In this case I think the Germani generalized a PIE rule,
that stops spirantize before other stops, into other contexts, one by
one, but that only the West Germanic speakers got around to generalize
this spirantization (but only for velars) into the context after s-
(and later sx- > s^- in German and English).
Torsten