Re: [tied] Re: On the ordering of some PIE rules

On 2007-06-06 17:49, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
> wrote:
>> On 2007-06-06 10:51, tgpedersen wrote:
>>
>>> How would you state the rule so that the lack of spirantization
>>> before stops is not an exception to Grimm?

>> It isn't the lack of spirantisation before stops but ...

> Not 'is', Piotr; 'might be'. It is the standard, but still only one
> hypothesis.

Here I was correcting your slip of the typing finger: the spirantisation
fails AFTER, not BEFORE pre-Gmc. stops -- and, by the way, also after
*s, which strongly suggests that we the prohibiting factor is a
(post-GL) FRICATIVE, not a STOP.

Piotr