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

--- "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

> 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?

There are several odd changes involving i/y by KY. Some are
optional within each like:

*doikYno+ > *taikYna+ > *ta:kYna+ > ON ta:kn

*LoigYheye+ > *laigYyi+ > *laigYi+ / *lagYyi+ > Goth bilaigo:n; OHG
lecco:n

*leukY+ > *leuxY+ > *leixY+ > OE li:h-
*leukYsYkYox > *leixYsYo: > OE li:xan
*leukYxY,do+? > *leigYeto: > OE li:getu / le:getu

*prekYnYe+ > *frigYnYi+ > *friGY[nY/y]i+ > OE frignan / fricgan

*doikYno+ >> *taikYniyi+ > *taikYnYyi+ > *taikY(nY)yi+ > OE tæ:can > E
teach; Goth taiknjan

Those are in the same syl. for iKY, but also:

*doikYo+ > *taikYa+ > *taxYa+ > ON ta:; E toe

Therefore, some of the opt. rules seem to be:

i>0 / V_$KY
i>0 / V_KY$y
i>V / V_KY$
u>i / V_KY$
nY>y / KY$_
nY>0 / KY$_y
y>0 / i KY$_