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

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

> On 2007-06-11 21:16, Sean Whalen wrote:

> > Forms with and without h1 appear independent of
> > placement in compounds; it seems to me that it's a
> > stative morpheme.
> >
> > I disagree with that rule.
>
> Such compositional clipping is commonplace
> throughout PIE, and affects
> all laryngeals, not just *h1. What matters for the
> issue at hand is that
> in composition the zero grade od roots like *dHeh1-
> or *doh3- easily
> loses the laryngeal, as in Skt. devá-tta-
> 'god-given'

But that doesn't happen in PIE; Skt. has x(),>0 between dental obs.
between syl. seen in:

*pYer i dxW,-to- > pa'ri:tta-

with the old syllabification shown by i>i: which wouldn't occur if
*pYer id-to- originally.

> > Well, I evaluate it as: are there any examples
> of
> > tt>ss after r?
>
> In Latin, yes. *-rT-t- gives *-rss-,

Well, yes; I mentioned that before and certainly wasn't trying to
imply Latin and Ger. have all the same rules.

As with i:s, even ttr>str>tsr>ss in Celtic.