Re: [tied] tt/st/ss

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

> On 2007-06-08 22:43, Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> > If there had been a stage where -ulum became the
> > analogical ending, why not *trahulo+?
>
> <traha, trahae> is actually attested in the same
> sense as <tragula>
> ('sledge'). The /u/ in <-ulum> is anaptyctic, just
> as in <-culum> and
> <-bulum>. There was a stage where the truncated
> suffix -lo- was added
> directly to the verb stem, yielding *-G-lom > *-glom
> > -gulum.

You said that when the alternations in *-trom became
too irregular to be productive -ulum became the
default. If you think it was *-lom at an earlier
stage, then there are several problems.

The changes in the stem would be more recognizable
at an earlier time.

Do you believe that this late anaptyxis would change
*-dlom > -dulum instead of a much earlier series of
changes including *-Cdtlo- > *-Cdelo-?

This requires that gh>kh>x>G>g in some positions,
however:

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen
<stlatos@...> wrote:

> --- Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <elme@...> wrote:
> >
> > A very old theory put forward by Alois Walde has

it

> > that there is a
> > Grassmann-type dissimilation in Latin if a liquid
> > intervenes. That
> > takes care of examples like barba, glaber, gradior
> > and a few others I
> > don't remember at the moment.
>
> It doesn't seem necessary to me. Partially the
> problem comes from initial *(ghR, g^hR, gWhR)

behaving

> differently from each other. Deaspiration of some

Ch

> next to a sonorant or glide is already needed for
> Latin.
>
> NgH>Ng etc.
>
> ghR>gR initially
>
> dhR>dR initially
>
> dr>tr
>
> C > -palatalized
>
> aspirate > -voice
>
> aspirate-voice > fricative
>
> xW>f
>
> x>h
>
> h>0 before sonorant
>
> So:
>
> *g^hreu- > ruo: (and *en- > ingruo:)
>
> *g^hreud- > ru:dus
>
> *g^hroH3wo- > ra:vus
>
> *gWhrendh- > frendo:
>
> *ghladhro- > glaber
>
> *ghredh- > gradior (a < ana. with *dhragh-)
>
> *dhragh- > traho:

The change of gh>g must be without intermediates (x,
G) since it occurs initially and specifies K vs KY as
an older rule.

Since dr>tr is already known, a dhr>dr change would
have to be even older, at the same time as ghR>gR.

Both B>b and D>d happen regardless of environment;
you think G>g is diff., and by itself it seems
possible, but with initial ghr>gr I'm sure that G>h
before fric.-hardening.

Remembering g()t>g()s and:

--- Sean Whalen <stlatos@...> wrote:

> --- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> > On 2007-03-14 04:23, Sean Whalen wrote:
> >
> > > PIE *ghdo:m > Pre-Latin *hu:m and then an
> > adjective
> > > was formed from the generalized nominative just
> as
> > > *bho:r > fu:r >> fu:rti:vus.
>
> > cluster to *g^H- (> Lat. h-) was regular. <humus>,
> > on the other hand,
> > seems to reflect the weak stem *g^Hm.-.
>
> Given other rules in Latin it seems likely that:
>
> ghdó:m ... -ó:m
> >
> hu:m ... -o:m or -u:m if not only in mono.?
> hu:m ... -o:m (analogy in o-stems)?
> hu:m ... -o:m (hu:ma:nus formed < hu:m)
> hum .... -om
> hum .... -um
> humus .... -um (irreg. noun > o-stem)
>
> I know that not everyone believes in the
> regularity
> of *-ó:m > -um but it seems fine to me (considering
> that both preceding and following C can affect V
> changes in Latin).
>
> > Looks like an excellent idea to me, though it's
> hard
> > to be sure what the
> > "regular" development of prevocalic *d(H)g^H- in
> > Latin would have been.
> > If Lat. sitis < *dHgWHi-ti-, one would expect
> *su:m
> > (!). However, in
>
> I think K and KW/KY developed differently in these
> clusters:
>
> ksóm ghdó:m gWhdiitís kYtiitús
> ks.óm ghd.ó:m gWhd.iitís kYt.iitús
> ks.óm ghz.ó:m gWhz.iitís kYs.iitús
> ks.óm ghz.ó:m z.iitís s.iitús
> ks.óm ghz.ó:m z.itís s.itús
> kóm ghó:m z.itís s.itús
> kóm ghó:m s.itís s.itús
>
> cum hum-us sitis situs
>
>
> So plain velar + obstruent > velar stop > etc
> round/pal. velar + obstruent > dental fricative
>
> KW/KY are deleted before new s. in an onset as an
> extension of the rule that retroflex sounds had no
> round or pal. allophones.

makes it likely tragula is perfectly regular:

tegtlo . tegYhtlo . wegYhtlo . dhraghtlo
tegslo . tegYhslo . wegYhslo . dhraghslo
tegslo . tegYhslo . wegYhslo . dhraghlo
tegslo . tegYhslo . wegYhslo . draglo
tegslo . tegYhslo . wegYhslo . traglo
tegslo . tekYhslo . wekYhslo
tegzlo . tekYhslo . wekYhslo
tezglo . tekYhslo . wekYhslo
te:glo . tekYhslo . wekYhslo
te:glo . tekslo+ .. wekslo
etc.
te:gula . te:la ... ve:lum ... tragula

*vegYhtlo+ > *wekslo+ > ve:lum 'sail' but dim. >
vexillum 'banner' assures me that t>s as I've said;
the treatments of ghsl and gYhsl differ just as
ghd>ghz and gWhd>gWhz, etc.

The Lachmann lengthening is unlikely to be ana.
since it happens only when PIE had s or t after the
root; so regularly from *tlo+ not ana. from *lo+.

> > Not always:
> >
> > *bhertlos > ferculum 'bier'
> > *tlaxtlos > tabula 'board'
>
> Admittedly not always, but often enough to be
> significant: <mulctrum,
> ara:trum, claustra, terebra, pollu:brum> etc. vs.
> <su:bula, poculum,
> fa:bula, stabulum> etc. There is no trace such an
> alternation in
> <-ulum/-ula>.

What does it matter how often? All the l-r could
just be from l-l. The important point is that they
are not from the same source; not phon.-conditioned
variants.



____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz