Re: The oddness of Gaelic words in p-

From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 59009
Date: 2008-06-03

At 1:47:12 PM on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, stlatos wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 1:30:32 PM on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, stlatos wrote:

>>> *sitikos 'thirsty' would come from sitis 'thirst' not from
>>> 'foot' or anything similar.

>> That should have been two separate comments: I accept the
>> usual derivation of <siccus> from *seikW-, and I don't buy a
>> derivation of <pecca:re> from an adjective 'footic'.

> You are the one who said "*ped-ka:- 'sin' > pecca:re", I
> simply said that it was formed from an adj./n (many verbs
> in -a:- are formed like this) with -ik- not -k-. I did not
> introduce the root *ped and certainly didn't say it meant
> 'foot'. You compared it to:

>>> Weiss gives as examples
>>> *ped-ka:- 'sin' > pecca:re,
>>> noting Vedic <pádyate> 'falls' in connection with the
>>> last.

> so why would my nearly identical derivation be connected
> to 'foot' not 'fall'?

They're the same root.

Brian