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

At 4:14:15 PM on Monday, July 2, 2007, stlatos wrote:

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

>> At 2:48:22 PM on Monday, July 2, 2007, stlatos wrote:

[...]

>>> 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.

You'll have to spell this out in more detail; as it stands,
it looks to me like a non sequitur. ON <teikn> is the
expected outcome of PGmc *taikna-, and <tákn> is a bit of a
puzzle (unless borrowed from OE <tâc(e)n>); what distinction
are you trying to draw?

Brian