Re: [tied] Octha or Ohta?
- --- In email@example.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>I'll say it again: opt. changes.
> W dniu 2012-02-07 21:00, stlatos pisze:
> > But in Slavic there was no gYH>z but gH>g , suggesting gYHG > gHG at
> > least, a theory helped by the presence of colored a.
> How come that Baltic has the normal Satem reflex while the rest of the
> word is the same as in Slavic?
How come Arm. has cicaLim = laugh, but Lith. has gai~galas = mew (the aquatic bird) [compare gáge(r)n \ gígen = cackle like a goose MHG; gagù gagé:ti = chatter Lith; etc.] ?
How come Arm. has cicaRn = swallow, but c^ic^RunkH = twittering of swallows ? Many opt. changes could occur when two dif. types of K touched.
How come you see the same in other Slav. alt. like kotera = fight R-CS; kotora OBg; çatera-s = enemy/injury S; w the same K(Y) by a indicating the same thing?
> > Words for 'goose'Not just in Balto-Slavic: géis = swan OIr; etc.
> > and 'duck' both contain a and are either C- or i-stems, so the
> > possibility of a compound word is high.
> Most types of consonantal stems (especially root nouns) end up as
> i-stems in Balto-Slavic. The usual reason is back-derivation from the
> acc. in *-m. > *-im
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
>I don't see any need for it to be old. It's prob. a new analogical word in Latin or late PIt.
> --- In email@example.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> > W dniu 2012-02-08 19:19, stlatos pisze:
> > > Gmc.
> > > *xaizda- = hair
> > > vs.
> > > *xaizda- = flax fiber / etc.
> > >
> > > Exactly the same meaning range, but *kays- differs from *kas- in having
> > > an entire phoneme added WITHIN the word, not just a possible k vs kY
> > > (considering all the apparently irregular changes among them in families
> > > that differentiate them).
> > Except that the Gmc. word is actually *xazDa-/*xezDa(n)- in both
> > meanings (ON haddr 'long hair', OE pl. heordan 'hards of flax', etc.).
> > Cf. *xe:ra- 'hair', which in my opinion reflects *kes-ró-:
> > http://hdl.handle.net/10593/1990
> According to Buck (OUG sec. 118), the change *sr > *fr (whence Latin fr-, -br- as in <fri:gus>, <fu:nebris>, etc.) "belongs doubtless to the Italic period". This makes it difficult to derive Lat. <vernus> from a protoform *wesri-no-. One would expect *wesrino- > Proto-Italic *wefrino- > Proto-Latin *webrino- > *webr.no- > *weberno- > Lat. *vebernus.
> I propose instead that Proto-Italic, like Proto-Slavic, had *wesni-no- 'springy' formed as a deadverbial adjective from the inherited loc. sg. *wesni 'in spring'.