Re: Order of Some Indo-Iranian Sound Changes

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

>
> At 9:13:45 PM on Saturday, February 21, 2009, Andrew
> Jarrette wrote:
>
> > --- 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.
>
> > But if /st/ in /tst/ should become [s:], why doesn't /st/
> > elsewhere become [s:] in these languages?
>
> Why should it? /tst/ is a very different environment from,
> say, /Vst/; the loss of the second /t/ is in effect a sort
> of dissimilation.
>
> Brian
>

Plausible and perhaps correct, but I still think my idea is an easier
development, therefore easier to believe, and therefore more likely.
Trouble is it goes against an idea that has been accepted dogma for
something like a century.

Andrew