Talk:*kʷetwóres rule

Suggestions

Could we please have:

the reference for Rix 1990
complete bibliographical references for Mottausch and Klingenschmitt
glosses for the words
an explanation of why these forms are believed to have originally had initial stress
justification of the assumption that posttonic e became o before this rule
more detail of what Mottausch is proposing

Thanks! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 17:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, yes, I'll put a 'stub' notice up, it's not finished or anything. Risch (1990) is quoted indirectly via Klingenschmitt, so I'd have to dig up his paper (I once did, but didn't take proper notes). The point is that the 'kwetwores rule' is treated in footnotes almost exclusively up to Mottausch. If I recall correctly, Rix baptizes it in a footnote, and Klingenschmitt (and other 1990s authors) quotes Rix, in a footnote. I think Mottausch is the first to discuss the rule in the article body. He basically says that static ó:é ablaut was modelled after suffix ablaut ó:é (from o:é), i.e.

R(ó)-E : R(é)-E after R(e)-S(ó)-E : R(z)-S(é)-E (earlier R(é)-S(o)-E : R(z)-S(é)-E)

with the argument that mobile paradigms were the rule in early times. But I don't intend to discuss Mottausch in detail, I'll rather hunt down the history of the rule up to Rix, for the purpopes of this article, and when it is better develop discuss Mottausch's proposals on ablaut or even PIE. dab (ᛏ) 19:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greek

Is it known if Greek tésseres was excluded from the rule, or was it a secondary reversion? Do other Greek words generally show the shift? —Soap— 14:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]