Return to Answer

That quote is not making a general statement that consonants after short vowels are geminated. It is instead saying only that *‑ni̯‑ > geminate -nn- after short vowels.

It makes no claim about the evolution of other consonants or consonant clusters. Strictly speaking it doesn't even make such a claim about short vowels other than *ă.

Note also that in the example given in the quote, there is no gemination of a single consonant, instead a cluster becomes a geminate.

That quote is not making a general statement that consonants after short vowels are geminated. It is instead saying only that *‑ni̯‑ > geminate -nn- after short vowels.

It makes no claim about the evolution of other consonants or consonant clusters. Strictly speaking it doesn't even make such a claim about short vowels other than *ă.

Note also that in the example given in the quote, there is no gemination of a single consonant, instead a cluster becomes a geminate.

Additionally, whilst it is common for languages to develop a restriction that all syllables be heavy (i.e. short vowels must be followed by a coda consonant), it's more typical for this to be done by lengthening vowels in open syllables than by geminating a following consonant (likewise it's more typical for a restriction against ultraheavy syllables to be realised by shortening long vowels in closed syllables than by losing coda consonants after long vowels).

It's actually this change (open syllable lengthening) and not the change you suggest (post-short vowel gemination) that occurred in Middle English.

That quote is not making a general statement that consonants after short vowels are geminated. It is instead saying only that *‑ni̯‑ > geminate -nn- after short vowels.

It makes no claim about the evolution of other consonants or consonant clusters. Strictly speaking it doesn't even make such a claim about short vowels other than *ă.

I would be surprised to see general gemination of single consonants after short vowels (and note that even in the example given in the quote, there is no gemination of a single consonant, instead a cluster becomes a geminate).

In general I would expect to see lengthening of the vowel in such environments instead (as occurred in Middle English and Hebrew for instance). This would likely not be visible to us in Latin transcription (as vowel length was not consistently marked, and no Romance language distinguishes short and long a), but it might be visible in Greek transcription if it had gone through the Attic-Ionic vowel shift where the lengthened form might show up as η rather than α (we cannot take negative evidence as evidence of the lack of such lengthening though, as it would not be at all surprising for a foreign word to fail to undergo the Attic-Ionic vowel shift).

That quote is not making a general statement that consonants after short vowels are geminated. It is instead saying only that *‑ni̯‑ > geminate -nn- after short vowels.

It makes no claim about the evolution of other consonants or consonant clusters. Strictly speaking it doesn't even make such a claim about short vowels other than *ă.

Note also that in the example given in the quote, there is no gemination of a single consonant, instead a cluster becomes a geminate.

That quote is not making a general statement that consonants after short vowels are geminated. It is instead saying only that *‑ni̯‑ > geminate -nn- after short vowels (and that the outcome after long vowels is different).

It makes no claim about the evolution of other consonants or consonant clusters. Strictly speaking it doesn't even make such a claim about short vowels other than *ă.

I would be surprised to see general gemination of single consonants after short vowels (and note that even in the example given in the quote, there is no gemination of a single consonant, instead a cluster becomes a geminate).

In general I would expect to see lengthening of the vowel in such environments instead (as occurred in Middle English and Hebrew for instance). This would likely not be visible to us in Latin transcription (as vowel length was not consistently marked, and no Romance language distinguishes short and long a), but it might be visible in Greek transcription if it had gone through the Attic-Ionic vowel shift where the lengthened form might show up as η rather than α (we cannot take negative evidence as evidence of the lack of such lengthening though, as it would not be at all surprising for a foreign word to fail to undergo the Attic-Ionic vowel shift).

That quote is not making a general statement that consonants after short vowels are geminated. It is instead saying only that *‑ni̯‑ > geminate -nn- after short vowels.

It makes no claim about the evolution of other consonants or consonant clusters. Strictly speaking it doesn't even make such a claim about short vowels other than *ă.

I would be surprised to see general gemination of single consonants after short vowels (and note that even in the example given in the quote, there is no gemination of a single consonant, instead a cluster becomes a geminate).

In general I would expect to see lengthening of the vowel in such environments instead (as occurred in Middle English and Hebrew for instance). This would likely not be visible to us in Latin transcription (as vowel length was not consistently marked, and no Romance language distinguishes short and long a), but it might be visible in Greek transcription if it had gone through the Attic-Ionic vowel shift where the lengthened form might show up as η rather than α (we cannot take negative evidence as evidence of the lack of such lengthening though, as it would not be at all surprising for a foreign word to fail to undergo the Attic-Ionic vowel shift).