Re: [tied] tt/st/ss

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

> On 2007-06-13 00:44, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> For <pa:la> as well as <pa:lum ~ -s> 'stake, I
> propose *pag(^)-tlo- >
> *pakþlo > *pakslo- > *pa(g)zlo- > pa:lo-,

I've already described this change and some similar ones several
times before; is there anything I've done you wanted to argue against
with these examples (besides intermediate s., etc.)?

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

> 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.

and:

> More importantly, just as I say t>s/l_l in Latin &
> Germanic, t>ts/R_R or R_N in Indic. The
> fricatization
> affecting T() only occurred for T. in Indic.
>
> kàltló+s kl,tl(e)+ 'neck'
>
> tèrkWtló+s tr,kWtl(e)+ 'spindle'
>
> kr,tnó+ 'woven > complete > whole'
>
> xml,d+dxW+iko+ > xml,ddiko+ 'soft+give+ing/er >
> pardoning / mercy / forgiveness'

etc.

> tedgYhti ... xml,ddiko+ ... terkWtl,+
> ted.gYht.i . xml,d.diko+ .. terkWt.l,+
> tez.gYht.i . xml,z.diko+ .. terkWs.l,+
> tez.gYht.i . xml,z.d.iko+ . terkWs.l,+
> te:gYht.i .. xml,z.d.iko+ . terkWs.l,+
> te:gYht.i .. xml,z.d.iko+ . terkWu+
> etc.
> ta:s.t.i ... ml,z.d.ika+ .. tarku+
> ta:s.t.i ... ml,_d.ika+ ... tarku+
> ta:s.t.i ... ml,d.i_ka+ ... tarku+
> ta:s.t.i ... ml,d.i:ka+ ... tarku+
> ta:s.t.i ... mr,d.i:ka+ ... tarku+
>
> kr,tno+ ..... kaltlo+
> kr,tno+ ..... kal.tl.o+
> kr,t.no+ .... kal.t.l.o+
> kr,t.s.no+ .. kal.t.s.l.o+
> kr,t.s.no+ .. kal.t.s.l.o+
> kr,t.s.no+ .. kal.t.Hl.o+
> kr,t.s.n.o+ . kal.t.Hl.o+
> kr,t.s.n.o+ . kan.t.Hl.o+
> kr,t.s.n.o+ . kan.t.Ho+
> kr,ts.n.o+ .. kan.t.Ho+
> kr,tsno+ .... kan.t.Ho+
> kr,tsna+ .... kan.t.Ha+
>
> l>l.
> T>T. / r._$
> T>T. / l._$
> T>T. / _K$
> T>T. / K$_
> d.>z. /
> t.>s. / _$stop
> t.>s. / g()$_
> t.>t.s. / R_$R
> t.>t.s. / R_$N
> t.>t.H / s._
> t.s.>t.H / _l.
> T>T. / T._
> z.>mora / V_C$
> fric+r, > u / C_#
> r.>r
> t.>t / r_
> T.>T / T_
> z.>mora

So you believe Ktl>Ksl, but not g()t>g()s or Latin gs>zg? What
makes the ev. for the others unconvincing to you?

There's some analogy in pa:la, but I won't get into it unless you
want to hear more of my personal theories.