Rtl (was: Re: [tied] tt/st/ss)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2007-06-18 19:13, stlatos wrote:
>
> > Also, less easily seen is Germanic VRtl > VRsl:

> > *gYheltlos gYhl,tl(e)+ > Lith z^irkle:s 'shears'; Goth gilþa 'sickle'
> >
> > *kaltlos kl,tl(e)+ 'pole used to raise something > neck' > Lith
> > kaklas; *xalsa+ > Goth hals
> >
> > *bhertlos > L ferculum; *be:ro+ > bier
> >
> > *fkYertlos > *kartalo+ > Skt kartari:-; *ske:ro+ > ON skæ:ri; OE
> > sce:ara > shears

> Aren't you packing too much explanatory power into the suffix *-tlo-?
> How can an ad hoc scenario like *-ersl- > *-erl- > *-e:r- demonstrate
> the existence of a *s at any stage in Germanic?

It doesn't prove anything by itself. Since I know that t>s in many
environments, including the examples of -tlos in various languages
I've given (Ktl>Ksl, Greek xtl>xsl), and ltl>lsl already seemed
certain in Italic and Germanic, rtl may have undergone the same
change. Therefore, it seemed more probable that s>0 there than t>0.
There are no examples of PIE rl remaining in Germanic; secondary rl
could be treated in any way if rare.

The exact intermediate steps aren't so important when the exact
cognates make PIE ltl and rtl the best reconstructions. Lithuanian
treates the two examples of ltl differently, either because each is an
example of unique dissim. or l,tl and ltl are changed at different
times. The timing of l>0 in these words also differs in Germanic.

> *ske:ro: and *be:ro: may
> easily reflect something else, e.g. collectives (or, better still as

far

> as semantics is concerned, fossilised duals) of root nouns, with the
> length generalised from the nom.sg.

What do you believe rtl becomes under different accents? Based on
other languages, these are the words that should show that outcome.