Re: [tied] tt/st/ss

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> On 2007-06-05 01:31, Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> > The PIE form of these words can't include *dzt
> > because their outcomes often show *t>0, leaving
> the
> > other as d, not *dz.
>
> IF all these words contained a *t in the first
> place. The contrastive
> suffix often appears as *-ero- rather than *-tero-,
> also when added to
> adpreps in obviously old formations, e.g.
> *h1ep-ero-, *sup-ero-

There's no reason to believe those are comparatives
rather than simple adj. < prep.

> The fate of *-d-tr/lo- in Latin can be
> deduced from the
> behaviour of _irregularly_ formed instrumental
> nouns.

That's what I'm doing. Or part of it, since later
forms might be regularizations (or diff. rules at
known morpheme boundaries, such as ndh > nd / nf).

> From <ro:de:re> we
> have <ro:strum>, compatible with the assumption of
> *-d-tr- > *-tstr- >
> -str-, with the usual failure of the second *t to
> assibilate before an
> *r.

I gave that very example, and don't think it shows
the oldest changes; just because it was formed later
the older dtr>dr didn't occur, or 'belly' was seen as
a whole word with no morpheme boundary so dtr>dr did.

> Then we have <caelum> 'chisel' from <caedo:>
> 'cut', <sca:lae>
> 'ladder' from <scando:> 'climb', and a few similar
> forms, suggesting
> something like *-d-tlom > *-s(s)lom > -(:)lum.

What shows the existence of *ss instead of *d there?

skadtlo+ .. kaidtlo+
skadtlo+ .. kaidtlo+
skadlo+ ... kaidlo+
skallo+ ... kaillo+
ska_lo+ ... kai_lo+
ska:lo+ ... kailo+

This is part of the larger variation between VCC and
VVC.

> <ra:dula> and <pendulum> are, in my opinion, new
> formations, parallel to
> <te:gula, re:gula> from <tego:, rego:>.

The long V is explained by ? These are from the t>s
changes in other env. than _T (more later):

tegtlo+ . tegYhtlo+ . wegYhtlo+
tegslo+ . tegYhslo+ . wegYhslo+
tegslo+ . tekYhslo+ . wekYhslo+
tegzlo+ . tekYhslo+ . wekYhslo+
tezglo+ . tekYhslo+ . wekYhslo+
te:glo+ . tekYhslo+ . wekYhslo+
te:glo+ . tekslo+ ... wekslo+
etc.
te:gula . te:la ..... ve:lum

> In old
> instrumental nouns the
> variant *-tro- was preferred after roots containing
> a liquid,

PIE *trom and *tlos are not variants of one
morpheme; they show dif. accent and variants of
e/0-grade in different cases. Since they are similar
to each other, and rules create irregular changes,
they often are mixed or one gains full productivity.

Latin shows late rules changing l-l > l-r, etc., so
I don't believe you can use this sort of thing to
prove ra:strum is older than ra:dula.

> and this
> is what we find in <ra:strum> (also from <ra:do:>!),
> but rather than
> preserve the regular reflexes of *-tr/lo- formations
> (no longer
> transparently relatable to their verbs), Latin
> developed the innovated
> suffix -ulum/-ula as an allomorph

I believe this is regular from many stems, not just
dentals (since tl>kl, *spektlo+ > -kkl- > -kl- >
speculum).

> of
> -culum/-cula/-crum/-cra and
> -bulum/-bula/-brum/-bra after roots with a final
> stop. This is an inner
> Latin affair and tells us nothing about the PIE
> treatment of *-T-tr/lo-
> (surviving only in traces in Latin).

As I've said, there is no PIE *t>ts, etc., so all
the rules I've discussed are specific to branches or
languages, and are ev. against any such PIE changes.




____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz