Greek R(X) & P/KW (was: Re: *-tro-/*-tlo-)

Since O-infix theory was brought up I decided to respond
specifically to why it doesn't work for this evidence.

The first and most important thing it's meant to explain is why o
wasn't accented when it was "expected" to. All these Greek words by
P/KW show ó:

--- stlatos <stlatos@...> wrote:

> --- stlatos <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> > *tl,xmn,+ > tólma
> >
> > *tr,xYmo+ > tórmos
> >
> > *pr,xWmo+ > prómos; Lith pìrmas
> >
> > *wlxwo+ > ou^los 'curly'
> >
> > *mn'wo+ > món(w)os but *mnwó+ > man(w)ós
> >
> > *tr,kWno+ > tórnos

Saying the accent was "retracted" for some undefined reason removes
the reason for the theory in the first place (in this respect).

I also wonder what the nature of this phoneme could be when even h()
(whatever they're assumed to be) could be accented in standard theory.

Of course, any word seems like the accent could be anywhere,
sometimes changing the meaning, sometimes seeming to vary apparently
at random in between Greek and Sanskrit.

Greek p(t)ólemos shows the o-grade with accent, no loss of h().
*tr,xYmo+ > tórmos shows how 0-grade can show o in a specific env. in
Greek. A C in front of the m blocks the rounding, showing it is a
result of m (*xYr,xYtmo+ > eretmón).

The existence of a sound that only shows up as an infix is unlikely.
The only other infixes in PIE, nasals, are the result of metathesis
and don't always appear within (as *pYrekYnYè+ 'ask (for)' and other
roots ending in KY).

To clarify some of what I've said:

> > *pl,xYú+s pl,xYw+ > *palús pólw+ > polús polló+

That is, two different outcomes in the paradigm, mixing two a more
regular form, maybe restoration of w if *polw- > *po:l-, depending on
timing.

> > R+tone X > oR/Ro before m/w
> > R+tone X > oR/Ro between w
> > C+tone > oC/Co between m & w
> > C+tone kW > oC/Co before N
> >
> > In Greek o>u between a labial (or _ velar) and a
> > sonorant by
> > Cowgill's Law.
> >
> > If these were original o, why not *mun(w)os,
> > *wul()os, *prumos,
> > *pulus? I assume you don't think polu- has
> original
> > o, at least.
>
> I think that the intermediate stage involves
> R+syl+round as:
>
> tr,kWnos
> tr,_Wnos
> trW,nos
> tórnos
>
> Part of the reason is that I already had such a
> rule to explain
> tw>tW>tY>sY>s (by making it sim. to ty) differing in
> dialects. So:
>
> mr,twós
> mr,tWós
> mrW,tós
> mrotós
> brotós
>
> Perhaps also *xar-xW-mós *xr,xWm(e)+ > armós:
>
> xr,xWm(e)+
> xr,_Wm(e)+
> xrW,m(e)+
> xorm(e)+
> xarm(e)+
> armós

Or maybe xC, > xaC before CW,>oCW:

xr,xWm(e)+
xr,_Wm(e)+
xrW,m(e)+
xarWm(e)+
xarm(e)+
armós