Re: [tied] tt/st/ss

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

> gYheltlos . kaltlos . bhertlos . fkYertlos
> etc
> gYheltlos . kaltlos . bhertlos . skertlos
> gYheltos .. kaltlos . bhertlos . skertlos
> gYheltos .. kalslos . bherslos . skerslos
> gYheltos .. kalsos .. bherslos . skerslos
> etc
> gYelþaz ... xalsaz .. berslaz .. skerslaz
> gYelþaz ... xalsaz .. berlaz ... skerlaz
> gYelþaz ... xalsaz .. be:raz ... ske:raz
> gYilþaz ... xalsaz .. be:raz ... ske:raz
> gYilþaz ... xalsaz .. bæ:raz ... skæ:raz
>
>
> *gYheltlos gYhl,tl(e)+ > Lith z^irkle:s 'shears';
> Goth gilþa 'sickle'
>
> *kaltlos kl,tl(e)+ 'pole used to raise something >
> neck' > Lith
> kaklas; *xalsa+ > Goth hals
>
> *bhertlos > L ferculum; *be:ro+ > bier
>
> *fkYertlos > *kartalo+ > Skt kartari:-; *ske:ro+ >
> ON skæ:ri; OE
> sce:ara > shears

I think the order may be different than my original theory (based on
some more possible examples). I think the loss of s caused
lengthening, then rl>r. Based on:

If *stxaltlos > *stalslaz > *sta:llaz > *sto:laz 'seat, chair' the
s>0 must cause it; the ll > l only happens after long V.

If *bhr,Los > *burlaz > *buraz 'child, son' then the loss of l
doesn't cause lengthening. The form is based on a possible diminutive
being likely for the meaning, sim. to Goth barnilo:. I can't think of
any reason for x() to be added to form some meaning that would make
sense; anything else would not have disappeared.