Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] Octha or Ohta?

Expand Messages
  • stlatos
    ... I ll say it again: opt. changes. How come Arm. has cicaLim = laugh, but Lith. has gai~galas = mew (the aquatic bird) [compare gáge(r)n gígen = cackle
    Message 1 of 49 , Feb 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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?


      I'll say it again: opt. changes.


      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'
      > > 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
      >


      Not just in Balto-Slavic: géis = swan OIr; etc.
    • stlatos
      ... I don t see any need for it to be old. It s prob. a new analogical word in Latin or late PIt.
      Message 49 of 49 , Feb 11, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.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'.


        I don't see any need for it to be old. It's prob. a new analogical word in Latin or late PIt.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.