--- Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <
elme@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos"
> <stlatos@...> wrote:
> >
> > So, by your order, this change happens after the
> formation of
> > syllabic C? That makes the whole thing much less
> likely to be one
> PIE
> > change.
>
> I don't see that: the syllabification rules are
> basically the same in
> all the IE branches, so I see little reason to
> separate them.
I made come criticisms of this theory before, as:
--- Piotr Gasiorowski <
gpiotr@...> wrote:
> On 2007-03-16 00:54, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >> Then if Olsen is right (as I think she is) about
> the "preaspirating"
> >> effect of *h2 and *h1, they belong to the same
> natural class
> >> (presumably of fricatives, since *h2 was quite
> clearly a fricative).
> >
> > Examples?
>
> *-tl/rom, *-tl/rah2 > *-tHl/rom, *-tHl/rah2 after
> consonantal *h2 and
> *h1, e.g. *páh2-tHlom > Lat. pa:bulum, *sjuh1-tHláh2
> > Lat. su:bula, but
> *póh3-tlom > Lat. po:culum. Then Lat. -idus <
> *-etHo- < *-e-h1- + -to-,
> Gk. ple^:tHos, ple:tHú:s, lat. ple:bs <
> *pleh1-tH(u/w)-. Then cases like
> Skt. ti:rtHa- 'passage', Lith. ti`ltas 'bridge' <
> *tl.h2-tHo-.
These are not from PIE but the result of similar changes in a few
branches. Even Iranian and Indic aren't exactly the same. H3 (xW)
can cause this, too (* pYròxW >> prathamá-).
In some languages both the x() before and C following are important:
Latin t>tH / x(Y)(+syl) _ r
but
Greek has NO t>tH / xY+syl _ r
and others:
*kYrixYtró+ > L cri:brum
*mexY-trom mxY,-tr(e)+ > Skt má:tra:-, G métron 'measure'
*xYer-xY-trom xYr,xY-tr(e)+ > Skt arítra- 'oar'; Lith irklas
*xar-xW-trom > G árotron; L ara:trum 'plow'
*ter-xY-trom > G téretron; L terebra 'auger'
PIE *gWer-xW-trom 'throat' > Lith gerkle:;
Grk *bérathrom > bérethron / bárathron 'pit'
*kWen.-x-tro+ > Skt khanítra- 'spade'
*pew-x-tro+ > Skt pavítra- 'filter, etc.'
*mexY-tor+ > Skt má:tar- 'measurer'
Why is there analogy in Greek téretron and métron when plenty of
words ended in -ethron/-ethlon? Why does Indo-Iranian have so many
alternants in -ta- vs -tha- but none in -tra- vs -thra- while the
reverse is true in L and G?
It's impossible that any analogy would be so complete as to make it
look like separate rules in each language if it were in fact a PIE change.
Balto-Slavic may have ana. in all tool-words, but I find it hard to
believe that there's not even one word that shows retained -d(l)o- due
to a shift in meaning as when *gWer-xW-trom 'throat' > Lith gerkle:
but Grk *bérathrom > bérethron / bárathron 'pit' or in tìltas.