On 2007-06-10 21:02, Sean Whalen wrote:
> Why would T-th > ss?
The laryngeal is not relevant. It's just *tt > *ss (via *tst > *tss vel
sim.)
> Didn't you already agree that
> rT-t might not > rss?
Not impossible, though (so far) based on shaky evidence. If true, that
would make *warst(a) (the 2sg. pret. of *werT-) regular, but *waist
(*weit-), *Baust (*BeuD-), etc. would still have to be considered
analogical. To sum up the 2sg. preterite situation, *-ta is regular in
cases like *xalft, *Tarft, *Dauxt, *laixWt, *wast, *kaust, *Darst, but
analogical in *waist, *Bast (*BiD-i/ja-), *kWamt, *Bart, etc., the
expected forms being **wais, **Bass, **kWamT, **BarT.
> I'd say probably:
>
> late PIE *xYrudhro+to+s > *xYrurdhtos > *rurstaz then
> dissimilation.
Not so probable unless you can cite other *-to- derivatives of *-ro-
adjectives. The stative verb stem was *h1rudH-éh1- 'be red, blush' (Lat.
rube:re, OIr. ruidid), so perhaps *h1rudH-&1-tó- is a solution, with the
vocalised laryngeal syncopated too late for the assibilation of the
second stop to apply (but the secondary *-tt-, violating [pre-]PGmc.
phonotactics, adjusted to *st). This, however, does not account for the
length of the vowel in OE.
Piotr