[tied] Re: On the ordering of some PIE rules

From: tgpedersen
Message: 47164
Date: 2007-01-29

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-01-29 02:37, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >> And if they were so intent on out-Iranianising the Iranians, why
> >> are actual Germanic loans from Iranian, such as *paTa-, so
> >> boringly straightforward instead of ending
> >> up as *faTa- or the like?
> >
> > Since it is also Slavic, it is tempting to ascribe it to a late
> > influence, when spirantization (I mustn't say Grimm) had run its
> > demographic course.
>
> Any reason to regard Slavic *poNtI as a loan? It can very well be a
> regular reflex of *ponth2-i-, while Gmc. *paTaz makes no sense in
> Germanic terms and can hardly contain anything else than the weak
> grade of Iranian *panta:-/*paT-. The borrowing must have been
> directly from Iranian into Germanic.
>

True. Kuhn has an alternative: PIE *gWm.-tó -> Celtic *bato (loan)->
PGermanic *paTa-.


Torsten