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

On 2007-06-22 23:31, stlatos wrote:

> 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).

I don't think the Greek evidence points to syllabic *h2 triggering the
aspiration. Latin does lose both *h1 and *h2 sporadically (<stabulum>
but <fa:bula>), Greek does so more regularly, so the only real
difference is perhaps analogical restoration on a more massive scale in
Latin.

> Indo-Iranian shows V x t V > V tH V; R x t > R x tH;

Only sporadically, as in *tr.h2-tom (or even dissimilated *tr.h2-trom!)

> ti:rtHam, but regularised <stHa:tram>, etc.

> and kW t V
>> kW tH V but not kW t R > kW tH R (Paktha-, uktha-, but vaktra-).

I don't believe in this one. We also have <ukti-, ukta-, vakti-,
vaktar-> etc. The ordinal suffix may have been *-th2o- > IIr. -tHa-,
(Ved. caturtHa-, paktHa-*, s.as.t.Ha-), losing the laryngeal elsewhere.

Piotr