Re: [tied] Terminology (Re: Piotr-)

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

>
> Your logic is unfathomable. So, say, Greek Leukippos, Hipparchos and
> Hippias can't contain the same onomastic element because their
> structure is different?

Nope , But you will recognise in Gree the "ipp" there. In Thracian we
have -esb-, -asb-. I very doubt if one will find in Greek a name like
*Leukappos and *Happarchos this one will think anymore at the
"ippo" -relationship.

>> The words which are known for *ek'uus- are:
>>
>> Skt: asva, Avest: aspa; Lit: as^va; Leth: es^va; Old Prus: asa(<
>> aspa)
>
> Spare us your linguistic. The correct version of the above line would
> be:
>
> Skt. as'va-; Av. aspa-; OLith. as^va ~ es^va 'mare', as^vis 'foal';
> OPr. aswinan 'horse milk'. I wonder why you chose just these
> languages. Reflexes of *h1ek^wos are found in many other groups

I wonder how you wonder. They are the satem forms of the IE root. Why
should I mention the centum forms here? Comparation should be done
within the same group in this case, imho.

>
>> One can argue in Thracian the "n" is an infix there or a part of a
>> suffix thus esb-enus or esbe-nus if one want to have there a horse.
>> If one choice "Esbenus" then Outasbios and Betesbios have in common
>> with Esbenos just the cluster "-esb-".
>> Is this enough for being sure this particle "esb" is indeed from PIE
>> cluster *-kwuu-"?
>
> Not *-kwuu- (why anything so strange??) but *h1ek^wo-. And yes, I'm
> pretty sure what it is, just as I'm sure that the second element of
> Glaukippos is the 'horse' word.

I know you are sure but you I suspect you are wrong :-)

>
>> About "Arzos, Arsos" ( < PIE arg'-) this should be the actualy
>> "ArgeS" in Rom. The pure question of logic is how do the Rom. have
>> the word with "-ge-" inside? If the Thracians/Dacians used
>> "arzos/arsos" the Romans could get just this form from them, the
>> Greek too, the comming migrators too. I very doubt the Goths/Gepides
>> or the Romans ( as the only centum speakers in that space after
>> Roman conquest) have ever thought: "Aha! The Dacians use Arzos and
>> this word is derived from PIE *arg'-, thus we, as centum speakers
>> have to say "arg-" to this river". The slavs as satem group should
>> have got it too in the same manner with "z/s" and there is no way of
>> making of "arzos/arsos" an "ArgeS" in Rom.
>
> Who says that the name of the River Argesh is ultimately Thracian? It
> doesn't even have to be Dacian. Do you seriously believe the Dacians
> were the first IE-speakers in what is now Romania?

Let me remember you about the toponym "Argedava" which coincidentaly
_is_ situated on the river "ArgeS".
As for the first IE speakers, I did not mentionated something regarding
the first, but about the IE-speaker "after" the fall of Sarmis. And I
said that the only centum speakers have been the Romans and Germans. If
you show me there is no connection between the river ArgeS and the
Dacian thema ( dema, dama) Argedava, I will think you are right in your
assumption ArgeS _is not_ of Dacian origin. I don't say the generaly
therm here as Thracians but I very specify, of _Dacian_ origin.

> If, however, the
> name _is_ Dacian, the *g^ in *h2arg^- would probably have become *dz
> (related to Alb. <dh>). This is possibly what lurks beneath ancient
> Ordessos (for *ardzes^- < h2arg^-es-jo-), in which Romanian
> substituted /dZ/ for /dz/, perhaps through distant assimilation to
> /S/.
>
> Piotr

Seems you are a bit wrong here. First of all, so far I know the
generally aception is as follow:
Alb. /dh/ is a result from PIE *d, *dh ( after /r/, Pekmezi, Gr. Alb.
Spr. 32)
The coresponding sound of Alb. /dh/ is not Rom. /dz/ or /z/ but simply
/d/
Alb-Rom: hurdhë - leurdã; shkardhë - zgardã

The Alb. /d/ should be the result of PIE *g^ and *g^h ( Pekmezi, Gr.
Alb. Spr. 29)
And for this example I shoued by myself the PIE *g^her- which gave in
Alb. "dorë" and in Rom. "ghearã". Thus, the Albanian form of
'*h2arg^-es-jo-' should have been '*ardes-'. No /s/, no /z/ but simply
"d".
And even if there should have been an /z/ one should have took it very
carefully as a proof of satemisation since the /g^/ is folowed by an
/e/.

Alex