Re: Order of Some Indo-Iranian Sound Changes

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 8:40:55 PM on Saturday, February 21, 2009, Andrew
> Jarrette wrote:
>
> > I've never understood why *tst should become /ss/ (in Gmc,
> > Latin), [...]
>
> It seems pretty straightforward: a likely route would be
> [tst] > [ts(:)] > [s:]. Both steps essentially just relax
> a closure, so I see it as a kind of lenition.
>
> Brian
>

But if /st/ in /tst/ should become [s:], why doesn't /st/ elsewhere
become [s:] in these languages?

Why couldn't one just say that [tt] > [ts] > [ss]. One could compare
the affrication of /t/ in strong position in many varieties of British
English that we've been talking about (and [tt] is like a
strengthening of /t/).

Andrew