Re: Order of Some Indo-Iranian Sound Changes

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

>
> At 9:37:59 PM on Saturday, February 21, 2009, Andrew
> Jarrette wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > 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.
>
> The other trouble is that it's too limited. You suggested
> /tt/ > /ts/ > /s:/. That covers Italic, Celtic, and
> Germanic, and you'll have no trouble with Indic /tt/, but
> how are you going to explain Iranian, Greek, and
> Balto-Slavic /st/ and Anatolian /tst/? An initial
> development to /tst/ explains all of them at once.
>
> Brian
>

I guess you're right as usual, but Italic, Celtic, Germanic, and Indic
could have retained /tt/ while Iranian, Greek, and Balto-Slavic
fricativized the first element to /s/, and Anatolian affricated it to
/ts/. Then subsequently /tt/ could have become [ts] then [ss] in
Italic, Celtic and Germanic.

I still don't understand why the first /t/ became fricativized or
affricated, despite Piotr's explanation. Although I understand the
_reason_ that he gives for its affrication, I don't fully understand
the process.

Andrew