Re: [tied] Re: *-tro-/*-tlo-

On 2007-06-20 21:32, stlatos wrote:

> There are no certain cases of ln>:l. All def. ones show ln>ll in
> all dialects (or ln if n is restored by analogy). The case of ou^los
> 'curly' is from *wlxwos and shows R+tone X > oR/Ro before m/w and similar:
>
> *tl,xmn,+ > tólma
>
> *tr,xYmo+ > tórmos
>
> *pr,xWmo+ > prómos

These have been analysed by Jens Rasmussen very elegantly. If you have
no access to his original publications, here is a summary:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30940

*wlh2wo- is ad hoc, while *(h2)wol(h1)no- forms a pair with
*h2wl.h1nah2, but I believe we have discussed it before.

I find it hard to believe that cross-dialectal correspondences such as
Ion./Att. opHeílo: ~ Aeol./Arc./Hom. opHéllo: ~ Dor. opHé:lo: point to
anything else but a nasal present. The dialectal distribution of sté:le:
~ stálla: ~ stá:la: is exactly parallel.

> The dialects do not show anything favoring *ln but allow that
> derivation in *sl as Sihler says in his _New Comparative Grammar of
> Latin and Greek_ (224.2.b):
>
> A widely-held view, however, is that these continue original *-ln-,
> particularly in formally opaque formations (hence not subject to
> recomposition). In fact, the few forms thus analyzed that are not
> profoundly obscure admit of better explanations. One of the clearer
> among the latter is G sté:le: 'block, slab', Dor. stá:la:, Lesb.
> stálla:, conventionally traced to *stalna: < stl,-neH2-, from PIE
> *stel- (the root seen in stéllo: 'put in order'). However, on both
> formal and semantic grounds the form is better seen as a noun in
> *-sleH2- from a different root, *steH2- 'stand':
>
> He doesn't allow Ktl>Ksl, so this *-slo- would really be PIE *-tlo-
> in meaning. The rules for Greek include:
>
> t>th/x+syl_R
> x-syl t > s/_l
> x()-syl t > th/_R

I find this *-slah2 more suspect than the traditional explanation. The
view that <sté:le:> goes back to *stl.-nah2 is "widely held" for jolly
good reasons.

>>> *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?
>
> You said that *ah2t>ath but not *h2,t; I say Greek can be explained
> only with full grade. Either way it seems needed.

Not necessarily. The aspiration is older than the dissimilatory loss of
the first *l. At the time it arose, the *h2 was non-syllbic. One could
even propose *tl.h2-tlah2 > *tl.tHlah2 > *t&tHlah2, with a "schwa
secundum". The Greek word simply doesn't belong here.

> What part are you concerned about? Greek doesn't show tr>thr after
> xY, (*ter-xY-trom > G téretron).

It does in péletHron, for instance. Analogical levellings betweel
full-grade and nil-grade forms are the probable reason for the messy
variation (which includes Lat. terebra).

> And isn't bill "a particular kind"
> of sword?

Usually a broad one with two cutting edges and often a curved point, as
in falchion, though in OE bill is often just a poetic synonym of
<sweord>. *bHeid- means 'cut, cleave, bite', so the name is perfectly
apt for the kind of weapon it refers to.

>> 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-.
>
> Because they show exactly the same odd form as the others. PIE
> *snexYtlo+ > ON snæ:lda 'spindle' not **sen-xY-tlo+, etc.

That's circular. And *senh1tlo- (or *senh1tro-, for that matter) is
impossible simply because the shape of the root is invariably *(s)neh1-,
never **senh1-, just as *steh2- doesn't alternate with **seth2.

>> (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-.
>
> The PIE is *Low-xY-trom > *lau-þran > ON lauðr, OE le:aðor 'foam' >
> lather. There are many different changes in sequences of e-o in
> various Greek dia.

Whether it's *louh1-tro- or *leuh3-tro-, it's oxytone and belongs to the
formation I describe in the quoted passage.

Piotr