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

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

> 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>)

This is part of the reason I said the +/-syl didn't matter in Latin.
Both full- and 0-grade forms of words in -tlo- are needed to explain
forms without h so I don't see why all those with h should be treated
as always showing full grade.

Either *terethrom was restored by th>t even though there remained
plenty of -thron after h (or V, depending on the timing) or h1 didn't
cause t>th in Greek or rh- existed in PIE but became r-h- later
everywhere it could be detected. Stative verbs like *sreweh1ti formed
*sreweh1trom > rheethron, but there may have been no h1>0 in
Macedonian > leibe:thron if it was /levE:tHran/ with a reasonable
likelihood.

, 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.

You seem to be saying that a little analogy is impossible, but a lot
is certain.