Re: Negation

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2008-12-08 00:52, Andrew Jarrette wrote:
>
> > So from the evidence of <la:werce>/<la:ferce> (early form

<la:uricæ>)

> > and <æ:fre> one can conclude that the change /-wr-/ > /-vr-/ is
> > regular in Old English?
>
> No. There are perfectly normal comparatives like <gle:awra> from
> <gle:aw>. Had i-umlaut remained productive in LOE, and had there

been a

> (semi)regular change of -wr- > -Br- > -vr-, one would expect the
> occasional appearance of +<gly:fra> of some similar form. Another

weak

> point of Liberman's proposal is that a form deliberately created by
> literate clerics in the 10th century should have been _immediately_
> affected by complex morphophonological transformations obscuring

its

> etymology (surely one would expect some preliminary competition
> involving forms like +<(n)a:wre> or +<(n)æ:wre> in OE texts before
> <(n)æ:fre> became generally accepted). All that can be reasonably
> claimed is that <-wr-> ~ <-fr-> is not quite without precedent.

That's

> why I don't regard the older etymology as obsolete.
>
> Piotr

claw
O.E. clawu, from P.Gmc. *klawo, from PIE *g(e)l-eu- from base *gel-
"to make round, clench." The verb is from O.E. clawian.

Where it enters in this schema?

Marius