From: Rick McCallister
Message: 63379
Date: 2009-02-22
> From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>Do we see /tt/ > /ts/ in dialects of modern languages with geminated consonants? e.g. in any Italian dialects? Just pronouncing a geminated /t/ seems to almost get you there
> Subject: [tied] Re: Order of Some Indo-Iranian Sound Changes
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, February 21, 2009, 10:22 PM
> --- 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