david salo <dsal-@...
> >äiti < aihvei? That's certainly odd, but on the other hand, Wright
> >lists the cognates as eidi (language?) and OHG eide.
> It's aiþei, with a "th".
Oop. My bad. I must have been thinking of Chinese ma1 versus ma3 ;)
[i.e. aiþei vs. aihva-]
> Some typos:
> >F kaupa "trade" cf. Go kaupon "to traffic"
> Should be F kauppa
> >F varta "extent, amount" = Go wairþs "worth, value"
> Should be F verta
> > Well, there's classical Latin sapo, -nis. While jabón doesn't look
> >like a regular outcome, saipo doesn't get us any closer.
> It looks like it was taken into Latin a good deal earlier than the
> other forms, and presumably from a different dialect of Gmc. You
> compare OE sápe "soap", but OE didn't exist yet!
Certainly, but the forms themselves don't really point towards two
borrowings, do they?
> /\ WISTR LAG WIGS RAIHTS
> \/ WRAIQS NU IST <> David
> <dsalo@...> <>