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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2007-07-05 01:14, stlatos wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
>
> >> Apart from the fact that the PIE root had *k rather than *k^
> >
> > I'm sure it's from kY. The palatalized velars could split into i+k
> > or k+s. or combinations in IE branches as I've said before. Among
> > others, in Indo-Iranian kY>k between u and front V (so rus'ant- but
> > rocis-). This is part of early changes after u varying among the
> > branches.

> There's also
> rúkmant- 'radiant' and rukmá- 'gold', also against your rule.

I said "Among others". I didn't even begin talking about kY before
consonants; or the effects of analogy (such as in -e/o- verbs).

> *-s- is frequent after velars and sometimes seems to produce puzzling
> structural changes (*//h2ewg-// vs. *//h2weks-// 'grow', *//h2elg-//

vs.

> *//h2leks-// 'defend')

I'm not saying there were no PIE affixes, just that there were
sometimes changes producing s in specific environments, not creating
new roots. It's not the same thing; there's no *leukYs+ (but there is
*leukY+sYkYox > *leukY+sox by dissimilation (in Germanic, not Welsh
llewyrchu or Arm. luc'anem)).

The changes +s are due to met., just like *kYreddhexY+. This can be
seen because this happens after optional Ke > Ka:

*kel/kal+ >>

*kal+dh+to- > *kladhto-, etc., >

hladan 'heap up, etc.', hlæst 'load, burden'


*ghaldhro- > *ghladhro- > L glaber

*ghardh- > *ghradh- > L gradior

*kart+tu- > *krattu- > *kratu- > Skt kratu-, etc.

I can't

> see any other evidence supporting the alternation you propose. Arm.

loys

> shows the Armenian merger of plain velars with palatals after *u, as
> also in <dustr> 'daughter' and <luc> 'yoke'.

I think h2 = x and when it became -syllabic gYhx > ghx in most
languages.

If *xyugom > *Gyugom > *Gugyom > *Lugyom, etc., like *xaNWgWhis but
*xaNWgWhy+ > awj it could be the met and Ky > KY. Without met. I
don't think *xy would become l.

What about:

u-o met > o-u Arm p'ok'r 'small'; Khow phuk 'few'

Why KY>K in:

Skt s'mas'ru-; Arm mawruk'

What K() do you say existed in:

anjuk, armuka, p'uk'

> If an unexpected *s is
> explained as an emanation of *k^, what is it doing e.g. in Ved. áks.i-,
> aks.n.áh. 'eye' after an etymological *kW?

Analogy with the desiderative. I don't use my rule to say that all
PIE s shouldn't be reconstructed or all odd s comes from one rule.