On 2007-07-09 21:33, stlatos wrote:
>>> *krux+ 'rough, hard'
>>> *krux+so+ 'crust' > G krúos 'frost', OE hru:se 'ground'
>> Gk. krúos is a neuter stem in -e/os-. The laryngeal here is
>> intervocalic, whatever its index.
>
> What other ev. do you have that shows what x()s became between
> vowels or anywhere else? Why does *kruxsd()+ > crusta in Latin if not
> d>t caused by the two fricatives before it?
What evidence is there that the 'frost, cold' etymon is the same as the
'crust, bark' one, let alone 'raw blood, gore'? Pokorny lumps them
together and a semantic connection can be forced on them (and may have
secondarily developed between their dialectal reflexes, especially in
words for 'ice'), but problems remain. Germanic and Balto-Slavic have
'crusty' words that seem to contain *kr(e)us- (no laryngeal), so why not
Lat. crusta < *krus-to-? If so, it would have nothing to do with
<cru:dus>, which is related to <cruor> like <-idus> adjectives are to
<-or> abstracts. Greek krúos may therefore reflect *kruhos (with an
indeterminate laryngeal), *krusos or even *kruhsos but surely doesn't
_have to_ be the last one.
Piotr