*-tro-/*-tlo-

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

> I do not believe the PIE forms ending in *-tlo- and *-tro- have the
> same origin. There are many reasons for this, but first consider:
>
> *staxtlos stx,tl(e)+ > OPr stakle 'support'; G sté:le: 'block'

I'd exclude the Greek word as possibly derived from PIE stel- 'support,
put up' (perhaps *stl.-nah2, cf. Gmc. *stullan- 'pillar' and *stel-an-
'stalk').

> *tlaxtlos > *taxtlos tx,tl(e)+ > L tabula; G te:lía 'board'

Why not *tl.h2-tlah2- > *t&2-tHlah2? What do you need the full grade
for? Incidentally, Gk. te:lía means not just 'board' but a special kind
of round board with a raised rim, or the hoop of a sieve, and is not
obviously a member of the *telh2- family.

> *xwexYtlos > G áethlon 'prize of a contest'

OK, but why masculine? (the same concerns the examples above and below)

> *bhuuxtlos > Slavic *bu:dlod > Czech bydlo 'dwelling', etc.

Slavic evidence proves nothing about the original distribution of
*-tl/ro- variants. They have been levelled out completely there.

> then compare them to:
>
> *mexY-trom mxY,-tr(e)+ > Skt má:tra:-, G métron 'measure'

The Greek word may be *méd-tro-, with the same root as in Gmc. *met-a/i-
'mete out, measure' treatment of *-d-tr/lo- as in Gmc. *seTla- <
*séd-tlo- and *Billa- 'sword' < *BiDla- < *bHid-tló-. That would explain
the short vowel _and_ the absence of aspiration induced by *h1.

> *xYer-xY-trom xYr,xY-tr(e)+ > Skt arítra- 'oar'; Lith irklas
>
> *xar-xW-trom > G árotron; L ara:trum 'plow'
>
> *ter-xY-trom > G téretron; L terebra 'auger'
>
> PIE *gWer-xW-trom 'throat' > Lith gerkle:; Grk *bérathrom > bérethron
> / bárathron 'pit'
>
> *kWen.-x-tro+ > Skt khanítra- 'spade'
>
> *pew-x-tro+ > Skt pavítra- 'filter, etc.'

How do you know that the last two have Skt. -tra- from *-tro- rather
than *-tlo-? The others above involve roots with *r, which explains the
preference for *-tro-.

> From this it seems that root of CVX are the same in both, but CCVX
> appear as CCVX-tlo- but CVC-X-tro- and PwVx as Pux-tlo- but
> PVw-x-tro-.

How about the 'oar' word, which shows both the full grade (*h1érh1-) and
the zero grade (*h1r.'h1-) without any semantic difference?

> Therefore, no *tel-x-tlo+ even though *tel-x-mon.+ existed, no
> *bhew-x-tlo+ even though *bhew-x-to+, etc. This could most easily be
> from an older difference in syllabification as C-tr but Ct-l never
> C-tl. Of course, other ev. shows me that PIE was a tonal language
> with multiple high, mid, low assigned for various meanings, but the
> exact reason doesn't matter here.

The different syllable division may explain the preference for *CRX-tlo-
over *CeRX-tlo- even if the root syllable was accented.

> This doesn't seem to indicate they were once the same, but instead
> that they were always different and with different accent patterns.
> The origin of *-tro seems to be from:
>
> *xYer-xY-tor+ > Skt aritár- 'rower'
>
> *pew-x-tor+ > Skt pavitár- 'purifier'
>
> *mexY-tor+ > Skt má:tar- 'measurer'
>
>
> That is, from the 'doer = person' form. An adjective in -o- was made
> from these nouns indicating 'as a rower, rowing, object that rows /
> for rowing' or something similar.

Or rather, 'belonging to the rower, a rower's tool'. I don't dispute the
connection, but my claim is that it extends to *-tlo- (leaving aside the
status of *-tel- as a variant of *-ter- and the more general question of
*r/*l variation in some morphemes). Why can't *sjuh1-tlah2 'awl' (Lat.
su:bula) be likewise regarded as a cobbler's tool (or, if you prefer, an
object that sews)?

Actually, the semantics of *-tr/lo- nouns is quite rich. There's also
some evidence that contrastive accent was used in PIE or post-PIE times
to distinguish at least two major types:

(1) Nomina actionis, typically with final accent, as in Gk. loetrón
(Myc. <re-wo-to-ro>) from *leuh3-tró-m, or Skt. hotrá- 'offering, the
office of a priest' < *g^Heu-tró- (or *-tló-). So <hotrá> is the job or
duty of a <hótar->: *[g^Héu-tor]-ó- --> *g^Heutr/ló-.

(2) Nomina instrumenti and nomina loci (the place where a doer does his
doing or the tools he does it with), typically with root accent and the
full grade of the root:

*légH-trom 'bed' > Gk. léktron
*póh3-tlom 'drinking cup' > Lat. po:culum, Skt. pá:tra-
*térh1-trom 'auger' > Gk. téretron, Lat. terebra, Celt. *taratro-
*h2árh3-trom 'ard, plough' > Gk. árotron, ON arDr, Arm arawr, MIr
arathar, etc.

However, zero-grade variants derived from the collective are frequent.
Hence also the variant *-tr/lah2 and sporadic final accent (cf Gmc.
*Billa- above). Deviations from the expected accentual pattern can also
be found in some nomina actionis, cf. Gmc. *murTra- 'murder' rather than
*mr.Dra-. Note also Gmc. *kurTra- (OE corTor) beside *kurDra- (OHG
kortar) 'herd' < *h2gr.-tro- from *h2ger- 'collect'.

> Therefore, the adj. has the same
> form and peculiarities as the noun, with *o at the end (and loss off
> unstressed tVr>tr). The meaning of the adj. arítra- 'propelling' in
> addition to the noun, etc., is additional evidence.
>
> Many transitive verbs end in -r, so the common, but not exclusive,
> favoring of r-tro- could come from the fact that there were many
> transitive 'doer' nouns that formed adjectives.
>
> Moreover, a close association between '_er' and '(object for) _ing'
> is seen in Sanskrit because:
>
> *xYer-xY-tor+ > Skt aritár- shows no i>i: since the accent follows i;
> but arítra- should be *arí:tra- which indicates analogy.

There's also <áritra->. Analogy can have operated either way between
*h1érh1-tro-m and its collective *h1r.h1-tráh2 (note the zero-grade in
Baltic), especially as oars, like wheels, often come in sets.

Piotr