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

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

> On 2007-06-23 01:59, stlatos wrote:

> >> 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.
>
> No, I'm only saying there is too little evidence to
> generalise from.
> <uktHá-> is fine, and I could adduce e.g. <riktHá->
> from *leikW-, but
> unmotivated, synchronically unanalysable forms like
> <nákti-, nákta->
> (*nekWt-), which are unlikely to have been affected
> by analogy, show no
> /tH/, which makes me suspect that the aspirate must
> be explained
> otherwise. The contrast between the adjectives
> <riktá-, uktá-> and the
> nouns <riktHá-, uktHá-> is surely somehow
> significant.

The nouns might not have a reason to change, but the adj. may > -ta-
as many others. There may be more conditions, such as tone after
*kWt, only when before V, or similar. Also, maybe *xukWn.o+ > ukha-.