From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 63377
Date: 2009-02-22
>I did see that one, but it didn't explain */tt/ > /ss/.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Repeating a rule is not affirming it, and since he doesn't go
> > > into the specifics I can't use his Pawnee parallel for anything
> > > so I think I'll stick with my version until someone refutes it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Would you mind directing me to the posts where you explain your
> > version of the development of *tt etc. in IE? (Or just summarizing
> > it again?) I would love to see an alternative view. I've never
> > understood why *tst should become /ss/ (in Gmc, Latin), or why an
> > /s/ should be inserted.
>
> Did you see this one?
> It contains the basic idea
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/63349
> There's a longer discussion in the archives, but I can't think of aI know Brian is not partial to many of your ideas, but really this one
> good search word.
>
> The idea is connected to an idea I had that perhaps both alternatives
> in the two shift-paradigms (kentum/satem and decem/taihun) were
> present already in PIE as allophones in paradigms (cf. Polish or
> Russian) and that kentum and satem languages got that way because they
> regularized their paradigms with /k/ and /s/, respectively
> (decem/taihun similarly) and by hypercorrection (shibboleth) the
> preferred allophone spread also outside the paradigms.
>
> Here is how I tried to experiment with how the allophones would look
> in PIE.
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/PIEstops/PIEstopsCurrent.html
> Please ignore the gunk at the bottom. I can't seem to get rid of it.
>
> As mentioned, some languages would go -þt- > -st-
>
> As for -tt- > -ss- (typically ppp's):
> PPP's end in -tó-, it is therefore a thematic adjective.
> Sturtevant thought the tómos/tomós noun/adjective pairs came into
> being as the adjective developed out of the end-stressed genitive (in
> order that the genitive, now as adjective, could be inflected along
> with the noun it governed, to mark they belonged together. The tómos
> noun came into being now by generalizing root-stress for contrast to
> the adjective. In other words, the tóms/tomós pair started as a single
> non-thematic noun, nom. tom-s, gen. tom-ós. In the same manner ppp's,
> in -tó-, started as non-thematic ´-t-s, -tó-, of which the former
> became those Sanskr. nouns with agent suffix -t-, Latin sacer-do(t)s,
> the latter became the classic ppp. Now, if by the above rule a root in
> -t had gone
> -þt- > -st-, then it would have
> nom. ´-s-t-s, gen. -s-t-ós, becoming
> nom. ´-s-s, gen. -s-t-ós
> and the various languages now generalized the stem of one of the two
> cases (-ss- or -st-) in their ppp paradigm
> (cf. Latin o(s)s, Greek osteon).
>
>
> Torsten
>