Re: Res: [tied] Comments on Beekes' pre-Greek

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@> wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps polis/ptolis < *tpolis, like pelea/ptelea "elm" <*tpeleya
> > > (cf. Slavic topol-) and khamai (<*dHgHmai)/khthon (<*dHgHom)
> > ("1a. pt may represent a single phoneme py, as we saw in B 1.
> > Exx. (Fur. 315ff): gnup- / gnupt- (gnupet-); kolúmbaina / kolúbdaina;
> > kíbalos / kíbde:s; lúpe: / lúpta; without variants note króssophthon,
> > sarúphthei~n. ")
>
> Actually Beekes does propose *tpolis ("[However, a metathesis tp > pt
> may have operated in ptólis.]"). He quotes no reason why.

It's probably just a hypercorrection from a dia. where pt- > p- was
happening.