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

On 2007-06-22 21:45, stlatos wrote:

> Well, *-lo- doesn't often form adj., either.

Well, my native language has *-lo- in the preterite of every single
verb, and those preterites are former active past participles -- in
other words, verbal adjectives. I know it's a Slavic speciality, but it
isn't completely unknown elsewhere. Greek has some *-lo- adjectives as
well; suffice it to mention <megálo->, where *-lo- extends *meg^h2-.

> However, doesn't Greek
> páskho: < *kWn,dhskYox prove that aspiration can move over an *s?

Yes, *-tH-sk- > *-tskH- > -skH- is what must have happened here, but it
looks like a Greek metathesis of aspiration, unconnected with Olsen's rule.

> It seems to me that bothros shows oh3tr > otHr, but maybe you have a
> different derivation.

Indeed, the variant <bótHu:nos> suggests a different morphological
division, with indivisible <botH-> as the root and no *-t(H)ro- suffix.

Piotr