Re: [tied] the tongue

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> The PIE word was *dn.g^Huh2 (with irregular treatment of the initial
> in several branches). The development of d- > l- in Latin dingua >
> lingua is not unprecedented (cf. dacruma > lacruma 'tear'). The word
> was certainly influenced in a folk-etymological manner by (formally
> unrelated!) <lingo:> 'lick' (PIE *leig^H-).
>
> The development lingua [liNgwa] > Rom. limbã is phonologically
> regular (gw > b). So is lingula > lingurã, since /u/ is syllabic in
> this word, and we expect Rom. b from Lat. phonetic [gw] only, not
> from [gu]. In Lat. lingere there's no /u/ at all, so what's your
> problem with it?
>
> Piotr

hmm.. I dont know how regular this is. The "lingula" is a diminutiv
form of lingua, so this is the same word, isn't it?
So the diminutiv word for "limba" in Romaninan is "limbutsa".
Latin "lingula" = Rom "limbutsa" from the semantic point of view here.
Can be the Romanian "lingura"= spoon, the Latin "little tongue"? I have
my reserves here because in the same manner I can say the romanian
"lîngã"= near is too from latin "lingo"= to lick
But for phonological correctness:
We see in Latin "angustus" > Rom. "îngust" where there is too an "u" and
we should expect in "b" "imbust". Where I make the mistake then?