Re: Gmc. *bru:diz

--- In cybalist@..., "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@..., Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
> wrote:
> >
>
> > it would be nice if we could demonstrate that *mr- (and perhaps

*ml-

> ) survived in Germanic till after Grimm's Law to become *br-, *bl-
> (phonetically [Br-, Bl-]). Any etymologies worth reexamining?
>
> For what it's worth (not a lot), I couldn't find any candidates for
> Proto-Germanic ml > pl or mr > pr.
>
> Possible ml > bl:
>
> Could Latin blatera:re, blati:re 'blabber' and Old Norse

blaðra 'talk

> nonsense' be related to one another and more distantly to the *mloi
> root seen in Slavonic mle^sk- and Sanskrit mlecchati (
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/8294 )? It seems a
> long shot - the root extension is different - /t/ v. /i/, and there
> is a high risk of these forms simply being onomatopoeic.
>
> Richard.

Falk & Torp:
Pladder (Da. mud; empty talk)
vb. pladre "talk empty talk", early Da. "slosh"

+ Sw. and MLGerm.

Gk. pHlázo:, papHlázo: "speaks indistinctly"

Question: should it be *ml- > *bl-, *bHl- or *pl- ?

Torsten