Re[4]: [tied] Re: Comparative Notes on Hurro-Urartian, Northern Cauc

At 4:13:04 AM on Monday, September 29, 2008, Arnaud Fournet
wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

>>>>> To start with, I think such a thing like -tl- is
>>>>> impossible in PIE.

>>>> From *stelh2 'broad(en)' (Pokorny #1885 pp1018-9) we
>>>> have Latin _latus_, _la:tus_.

>> stel&- To extend. (Oldest form *stel&2-.) Zero-grade
>> form *stl.&-. 1. Suffixed form *stl.&-to-. LATITUDE;
>> DILATE, from Latin <la:tus>, broad, wide.

> ok, but the problem is Baltic has *e grade in some words.
> Hence there was no reduction to stl- in PIE.

That is a complete non sequitur, and illogical besides. The
Latin word shows the expected zero grade of the root.

> *stel- existed and maintained -l- in the root structure.
> And this root is *st_l_H2

The root is *stelh2-.

> It does not refute my statement that tl-(vowel) is
> impossible in PIE and changes to -tr-(vowel).

It does.

> I agree that LAtin la:tus < stleH2-tos is not far from
> target but Baltic stel- exists.

You're not agreeing. The claim is that Lat. <la:tos> is
from *stl.h2-tós. PIE *Cl.hC is regularly reflected as Lat.
Cla:C.

Brian