--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-06-22 21:45, stlatos wrote:
> > 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.
How do you know it was met. and not spreading? I can't believe that
this h()t > tH goes back to PIE. No matter how common analogy was,
there's no reason it would cause only the analogy that made it look
like similar but separate rules in different languages.
Latin shows x(Y)tr > x(Y)tHr with no loss of x(Y), no dif. between +
and -syl. Greek shows x+syl tr > x+syl tHr, x(Y)tr > tHr with loss of
x(Y). Indo-Iranian shows V x t V > V tH V; R x t > R x tH; and kW t V
> kW tH V but not kW t R > kW tH R (Paktha-, uktha-, but vaktra-).
Analogy couldn't possibly even favor one of these over the other,
let alone create such odd distributions.