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

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

>
> --- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> That makes many more assumptions than I do. It is not necessary for
> the Greek ev. to go back to PIE. The cognates such as Lith pìrmas
> with prómos show RX could sometimes > oR/Ro. Since Greek shows the
> most complicated changes in RX, diff. outcomes before (and between,
> etc.) P and KW for R and RX seem reasonable.

And, of course, an o-infix doesn't explain why or and ro coexist,
but PIE *r is already known to become either ar or ra as the last
stage of syllabic C changes.