From: m_iacomi
Message: 16786
Date: 2002-11-18
> Who told you that any of these names derives from a protoform withThat's crystal clear. In fact, C.D. Buck gives four (P)IE roots
> *kW? Almost all of them seem to contain the root *{h2ep-} 'flowing
> water, river', which has PIE *p. This root, by the way, is best
> attested in three _Satem_ groups that never show /p/ for *kW:
> Indo-Aryan (OIA a:paH 'waters' < *h2op-es, dvi:pa- 'island' <
> *dwi-h2p-o-, etc.), Iranian (Av. a:fs^ < *h2o:p-s, etc.), and
> Baltic (OPr. ape). Latin and Celtic possibly have it in
> *h2ap-h(o)n- > *h2ab(o)n- 'river', and judging from the frequent
> occurrence of "ap-" hydronyms in the Balkan area, it was widespread
> in the ancient local languages as well. It should *not* be equated
> with Latin/Germanic *akWa:, which would not have produced such
> reflexes. If Iranian, Indo-Aryan and Baltic have *h2ap- and are
> Satem nevertheless, its presence in Thracian or Dacian surely does
> not suggest that they are not Satem.
> Rom. apã could in theory continue Dacian, Thracian or IllyrianUndoubtedly, Latin "aqua" should have given in Romanian "apã",
> *apa: if such a form were attested (it is not, in fact; the Dacian
> word, for example, was apparently a reflex of *h2apos). However,
> the fact that it means just 'water' like Lat. aqua (not 'flowing
> water' or 'river' in particular), and that it is derivable from
> <aqua> via regular Romanian sound changes, compels us to regard
> it as a relative of <eau>, <agua>, <acqua> and other Romance
> 'water' words, not of <apos>.