Re: [tied] Deiwos AND dyews

----- Original Message -----

From: Miguel Carrasquer

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 12:58 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Deiwos AND dyews

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:47:27 -0600, Patrick Ryan
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>  I am wondering how secure the equation IE *di/*dy > Hittite si-sy?
>
>  Sturtevant mentions on page 15 <Si-pa-an-ti>, 'he pours a libation', which he connects to Latin <spondeo:>.
>
>  If I understand you correctly, this should, according to you, appear as *<Si-pa-an-Si>.

It's unclear whether d > s before *ei (*sponde + i >
s(i)panti) or whether the rule applies at all in non-initial
position.

>  On page 61, Sturtevant (_A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language, Vol. I_) writes:
>
>  "IH d = IE d remains in Hittite, where it is regularly written as single t or d. Hittite d + s yields ts, which is written z or zz."
>
>  Is your equivalence an equivalence that Sturtevant missed?
>
>  If so, who established it; and what proof, aside from [D]Siu:-, was offered?

Siu- and siwaz, siwatt- are the only well-established
examples.  They are very secure, in view of e.g. Luwian
Tiwaz, Tiwatt-.

 PCR:

 

Without disputing what evidentiary value the Luwian examples may convey, how would you (or someone else you be following here) explain seeming exceptions like <Si-pa-an-ti>? That is not the only example that could be cited.

 

I am inclined to suspect a connection with IE *sa:wel/n-.

 

 

Patrick