Re: Rex-Raj-Rix

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: João Simões Lopes Filho
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 4:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Rex-Raj-Rix
>
>
> > But a plausible contact of Celts to Indo-Iranians might be to

Scythians?

> Scythian preserved the *re:g^-s root? (*ra:z-)
>
> Whether it did or not, neither *ra:z- nor any other Satem reflex of
> *(h1)re:g^- can account for Celtic ri:g-, which represents the

regular

> development of the PIE form (the same holds for Lat. re:g-).
>

Hm! Obviously. Very early contact, then ;-) But assuming that
satemisation was a further development of palatalisation, there must
have been regularisation of paradigms. Do we know how long that
period lasted?

There's an unaccounted-for /i/ in German 'reichen' (because of
Benveniste's idea of the rex as a kind of surveyor, I think it
belongs with 'rex'). But even if that were a side form it would only
account for a hypothetical **rik-

Torsten