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

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> 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.

You are the one who derived árthron < *xarxYtrom; I said it (and
artus) came from *xartros *xr,tr()+. When you objected to my rule and
said that t>th was the result of a second h in the root, I wasn't
convinced but used artus, whatever its origin, as ev. that there was
no second h, but even if there were, it didn't cause t>th in Latin
because of r>0. I didn't think you'd say that the two words were
unrelated, which seems impossible to me. Any word can shift its stem,
this is likely due to analogy with manus.

There is no ev. that árthron < *xarxYtrom; it seems odd that it
would be the ONLY word in Greek not to have the analogy you require
return the second h. If you say that there was no reason for ana. in
this word, I'd ask why it occurs in others even when the h disappears
in other words from the same roots.