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

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

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

> >>> *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.

Are you saying h()>0 when t>th or not? You've said diff. things in
the archives; I need to know your current rules and order to argue
against this more effectively.

More changes that show this is branch-specific not PIE include:

* xY,s+u+ > eu-
* xY,s+tlo+ > esthlos '~good'

* xr,+tro+ > arthron 'joint'

That is, it seems the x() could could cause aspiration to a dental
over a dental (though I'd say retro. in my own usage).