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

On 2007-06-21 22:25, stlatos wrote:

> It seems more likely that there was no h1 or any other h in this
> word (*artros > L artus). Since Latin had r-r > r-0 dissim., the rule
> never took place (ev. that it's only cases of XtR not Xt that caused
> aspir. in L & G, and after PIE times).
>
> Even if there had been another "laryngeal", why no tH>T>f>v>b in
> Latin? It seems likely there wouldn't have been any reason for
> analogy here. The only odd thing is the loss of r, thus indicating
> that that is the necessary condition for the rule.

The derivation can't be right. Lat. artus is a u-stem, comparable with
Skt. rtú-, and Gk. artús (*h2r.-tú) and belonging to a different
word-family. Derivatives of *h2ar- 'arrange, fit together (in various
technical senses)' and *h2arh- (in names of limbs and their parts)
should not be lumped together lightheartedly. The roots are similar in
form and presumably in meaning and so probably somehow related, but not
identical.

Piotr