Re: [tied] spylian (PIE part)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:

> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
> > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 8:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: [tied] spylian (PIE part)
> >
> >
> >
> >> In so far, I agree that the hypothesis of a loan from Germanic

is not

> >> correct ; I go further with my toughs and I suppose there is a

PIE

> >> root which allowed the Germanic form and the Romanian and

Albanian

> >> form. A root like "*sp(h)el(e)"- should be a very good candidate

for

> >> Romanian and Germanic but I don't know how Albanian will react

here

> >
> > PGmc. *ul may indeed reflect PIE *[l.] (syllabic */l/), which

would

> > probably require a root like *spelH- (*spl.H- > Gmc. *spul-). The
> > vocalism could be made to work. Unfortunately, there are those

other

> > problems I mentioned (apart from there being no independent
> > attestation of such a root with a meaning 'rinse, wash out' or
> > similar). Initial *sp- should have given Albanian /p-/, and *l

should

> > have been rhotacised in Romanian
>
>
> Hmmmm.. in Albanian is an another word "spalce:"=
> Waschlappen.=washcloth, an another "shparge:r"= windel= napkin,

diaper.

>
> But:
> alb, shpote:= german Spott , same semantism , I know no PIE root

here

> alb. spe:rkitje= german sprühen, same semantism, PIE *(s)phere-
> alb, spikth = german Specht, same semantism, I know no PIE root

here.

>
> It can be these are all simple coincidences or simple loans ?
>
> >>
> >> P.S
> >> If the rhotacism in Romanian is so important in your eyes, there

can

> >> be the root "*sp(h)ell(e)-" as well :-)))))
> >
> >
> > The PIE morpheme-structure constraints rule out this possibility.
> > *-ll- doesn't occur in PIE morphemes
> >
> > Piotr

This doesn't out *spelh-n- with an -n- formative (from PIE *-neu- or
*-nah2-), as in Latin pello: 'drive' from the root pel- and Latin
po:no: 'put', analysed as pos-n-o:?. Presumably 'sp-' would make the
substrate Thracian here, rather than Dacian. There is some evidence
for -ln- > -ll- in Thracian - the place name Kellai/Cillae and a few
other names where it might be an element meaning 'spring' (PIE
*gWelnah2). I'm indirectly quoting Duridanov for this example.

Why should *experlavo be Proto-Romance? Can't 'ex-' (or the reduced
form 's-') have been prefixed only in Balkan Latin?

Richard.