Re: [tied] A problem with PIE *p(o)lH-

The question about Gk. pto'lis as opposed to the root *pleH1- (or *pelH1-,
although that would look like a secondary backformation) boils down to
this: What does come out of PIE *pt- or *py- in the other languages? As
long as this is not known, the connection remains unfalsifiable.

Jens

On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, sergejus_tarasovas wrote:

> Gr. _po'lis_ 'town' is routinely compared with Lith. _pili`s_
> 'castle' and Skt. _pu:'r_ 'fortified place', and on this base
> something like PIE *p(o)lH- 'fortified place' is usually
> reconstructed. I have no problem with the Old Indo-Aryan and
> Lithuanian lexemes (the last even seems to point to a possible
> etymology -- cf. Lith. _pi`lti_ 'to pour, to fill' (< *plh1-) and a
> deverbative _py'limas_ 'rampart', lit. 'what is piled up' (here -yl-
> from -il- by Schleicher's pseudo-apophony, -yR- < -iR- (R - sonorant)
> being one of the most trivial cases); the Greek one, however, has an
> alternative form -- _pto'lis_ 'id.', and if Myc. Gr. _po-ta-ri-jo_
> does belong here, _pto'lis_ seems to be the older one, making a
> comparison with the Old Indo-Aryan and Lithuanian lexemes at least
> problematic.
>
> Any ideas?