From: tgpedersen
Message: 57709
Date: 2008-04-20
>Of course it does. The question is whether the adjective was
> At 5:03:03 AM on Friday, April 18, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
>
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>> How do you then derive Gmc. *sal-t- from IE *sh2el-?
>
> >>>> I've seen no ev. the same rules apply to liquids. It's
> >>>> more likely that there's contamination with the adj.
> >>>> 'salty' with d>t, as part of similar changes in IE
> >>>> branches specifically for this word.
>
> >>> I haven't looked up the ON, but Danih has
>
> >>> salt "salt"
> >>> salt "salty"
>
> >>> and the -t (< PIE *-d, cf German -s) is the NeutNomAcc
> >>> suffix,
>
> >> I don't think so.
>
> > In the indefinite inflection, the Danish adjective has -t
> > in the neut. sg. (there are no cases), and the ON
> > adjective has -t in neut. nom.acc. sg., whether you think
> > so or not.
>
> I expect that Sean was doubting that the <-t> of <salt> is
> the neuter NA singular ending, not that the latter is <-t>.
> And as Jouppe and I have already pointed out, the doubt is
> clearly justified, since all forms of the adjective have the
> <t> (e.g., indef. sing. nom. masc. <saltr>, fem. <sölt>).