Mycenaean Reflexes of *r̥ and the Numeral ‘Four’

It is widely assumed that the regular reflex of interconsonantal *r̥ in Mycenaean was ‐ro‐, or that both ‐ro‐ and ‐or‐were possible outcomes. In this chapter, I will argue that this assumption is incorrect: in Linear B, the reflex is regularly spelled with one sign of the shape ⟨Co-⟩, which can only represent an outcome ‐or‐ or unchanged ‐r̥‐. Beforewe are in a position to evaluate theMycenaeanmaterial, the evidence must be sifted. I will start in section 2.2 by reconsidering forms in which the reflex is supposed to be spelled with signs of the a-series, evaluating the treatment byGarcía Ramón (1985). In section 2.3, I will presentwhat I consider to be plausible evidence for the reflex *r̥ written with signs of the o-series, and separate this from irrelevant evidence and interpretations that I consider to be less plausible or uncertain. On this basis, I will reconsider two remaining issues: the relationship between o-series spellings of the reflex and a few incidental a-series spellings (section 2.4), as well as the apparent fluctuation between spellings of the types ⟨Co-⟩ and ⟨Co-ro-⟩ (section 2.5). Three proposals by previous scholarswill be reviewed: the case for an irregular liquidmetathesismade by Risch andHajnal on several occasions; the idea of Heubeck (1972) that r̥was preserved in Mycenaean, and finally, the proposal of an accent-conditioned development, revived by Klingenschmitt (1974). In sections 2.6 and 2.7 I provide a detailed account of theMycenaean and Alphabetic Greek reflexes of the numeral ‘four’.