Talk:Bartholomae's law

lēgus?

It's been awhile since I looked at the sound changes yielding Latin, but if I remember right PIE Tl > Latin K(u)l, and cluster simplifications with compensatory lengthening tend to preserve the last consonants of the cluster, so that co-āgulum and tēgula might be reflexes of things like -ag-glo- and -teg-glo- at the relevant stage and wouldn't speak to the outcome of PIE *ghdh. Might one not guess lēdus instead? Anyway it'd be good to see that speculation cited. 4pq1injbok (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Chronology

The presence of instrumental-noun-forming suffixes *-dʰro-, *-dʰlo- besides *-tro-, *-tlo- has been interpreted as pointing to a PIE age of Bartholomae's law. However, Proto-Iranian *dugdar- "daughter" from Proto-Indo-Iranian *dʰugHtár-, which presupposes the loss of the PIIr laryngeal *H prior to Bartholomae's law, seems to point to the law being in effect as late after the Proto-Indo-Iranian period. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"Daughter"

In the 2015 book "The Indo-European syllable", Byrd appears to take the position that PIE already had regressive voicing assimilation. Thus, he reconstructs the oblique stem *dʰug-tr- (with lost laryngeal) as being phonetically realised as *dʰuk-tr- already in PIE. Forms reflecting that are indeed attested in the Indo-Iranian languages, alongside forms showing Bartholomae's law that must originate from the nominative stem.

The question then arises, if "daughter" already had assimilated this way in PIE, why did "Buddha" not do so too? Why was it not *bʰudʰ-to- > *bʰut-to- > *bʰutsto- (with s-insertion between adjacent dentals)? Rua (mew) 08:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)