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

--- Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <elme@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos"
> <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> > 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-).

[If I'm wrong then:]

> > 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?
>
> I do not think there is any analogy at work in Gk.
> téretron.

Neither do I, but for a different reason.

> If the
> laryngeal is "syllabified" (in the shape [x&], i.e.
> a sequence of a
> reduced spirant followed by an ultra-short
> prop-vowel, the joint
> duration being probably about the same as with the
> non-syllabified
> variant), then the following /t/ is not in contact
> with the
> laryngeal and so the aspiration does not rub off on
> the /t/

Then why would there be aspiration in:

PIE *gWer-xW-trom 'throat' > Lith gerkle:;
Grk *bérathrom > bérethron / bárathron 'pit'

PIE *pYel-x-trom > pélethron

or whatever other specific derivation you might have?

It seems that only syllabic x (h2) caused aspiration in Greek; since
that's dif. than other languages it can't be a PIE rule.

> > 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.
>
> What's the problem here? We're talking about
> "schwa", the syllabic
> realization of laryngeals. I do not see any major
> differences
> between the branches concerning the distribution of
> syllabic and
> asyllabic realization of the laryngeals, do you?

No; my problem is that each language shows a different distribution
of t>th that makes it unlikely it could be the result of PIE changes.
Similar changes in each, in different env., make more sense to me.

> > 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.
> >
> You are not communicating. I simply do not
> understand what point you
> are trying to make here. Could you try again?

In this particular example, I'm saying it seems odd that there's no
*gerdlas or sim. since 'throat' isn't a tool and is unlikely to have
analogy. It's not necessary that this be the one example proving my
point, just that there is NO example of the RHT>Rd being retained in
such a word. I think if the rule had actually occurred, at least one
would show it.