Re: [tied] tt/st/ss

From: stlatos
Message: 48963
Date: 2007-06-12

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> On 2007-06-12 01:20, Sean Whalen wrote:
> > But the meanings suggest ra:dula is older (that
> is,
> > it's had time to develop a specific meaning
> different
> > than the verb), though I wouldn't argue from that
> > alone.
> Why a different meaning? The meanings of <ra:do:>
> given by Lewis & Short
> are 'scrape, scratch, shave, rub, or smooth; of the
> hair, to shave off
> with a razor (while tondere is to cut off with
> shears ...)', and <caput
> ra:sum> is a particularly frequent collocation (even
> Google yields a few
> dozen hits for "capite raso", as I checked a moment
> ago). Why should the
> meaning 'razor' be more special than that of
> <ra:strum> 'rake'?

I meant older than ra:llum; since I don't believe -trom and -tlos
are from the same form that doesn't matter to me.

As I said, it's not much by itself, but also many meanings of words
in -ulo+ seem older than I'd expect if they were late analogy.

> ra:strum 'rake' < *ra:d-trom
> ra:llum 'scraper' < *ra:d-lom (pre-Lat. innovation)
> ra:d-ula 'razor' (latest and fully productive in
> Latin)

There are so many possible complications I wouldn't base any
conclusions on this word alone; there are many reasons I've given why
*-tlo+ > -lo+ seems to be regular in certain environments. Among
problems: what if late IE *razd+ > Welsh rhathu 'rub, smooth' which
would make ra:strum analogical at a stage when tt>st, etc., anyway?
The dim. ra:stellus not -illus makes it seem late. Why no shortening
of ll>l after long V? It might be very late and show dl>ll again, or
be partly or completely analogical. Don't older words tend to end in
-()la more often?

Your explanation of the various forms now requires many ana. stages,
some which might have been very close together:

PIE: *trom/tlom vary by root
Italic ana.: *C-tlom; *V-thlom
pre-Latin ana.: *-lom
Latin ana.: -ulum
late Latin ana.: -(i)culum but also some new forms in -(i)bulum, etc.

shown by *sepeltlom > sepulcrum, cande:la:brum

There are objections I've made to parts of this before. Why is the
mid stage allowing a productive ending identical to the dim. to arise
when most words at this stage would end in *-tlr/om/*-thr/lom or
something identifiable? Why not ana. -trom or -rom if they meant the
same thing?

Also, why would only -lo+ become ana. in the middle, then -clo+
return at a later time? Why are new forms made with older endings
later but not in the middle stages? Does your scheme allow -tro+ to
continue to be productive with the same meaning in addition to -tlo+?
If so, why not *sepeltrom? I'd say that -tlo+ always had a dif.
meaning and origin.

With your description now specifically allowing -lum and -ulum, do
you still think or need to have tt>ss as an explanation of sca:lo+ and
caelo+? What stage would you use to explain my *pangtlo+ > *pangslo+
> pa:la 'spade, shovel'? Which stage allows the Lachmann lengthening
you posited before?