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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 2:48:22 PM on Monday, July 2, 2007, stlatos wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > What about ON han- >> hon 'she', hennar 'her (gen.)'?
>
> What's the problem?
>
> Writing /ö(:)/ and /ë(:)/ for the u-umlaut and i-umlaut,
> respectively, of /a(:)/:
>
> *ha:naz > *ha:naR > *ha:nR > ha:nn > hann
> *ha:nu > *hö:nu > hö:n > ho:n
> *ha:naizo:z > *ha:ne:zo:z > *ha:nizaz > *ha:niRaR >
> *hë:nRaR > *hë:nnaR > hennar

Why would nz>nn after a heavy syl. (long V)? The changes are more
complex than you're showing.

> > Why don't you have palatalized K in Proto-Germanic?
>
> Why would you?

Because KY had different effects on i, y, nY than K. These lasted
into individual Ger. languages (or else were very optional).
*doikYno+ > *taikYna+ > ON teikn / ta:kn 'sign', for example.