Res: [tied] Re: Latin re:ne:s 'kidneys'

--- In cybalist@... s.com, Octavià Alexandre <oalexandre@ ...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@ > wrote:
> >
> > > --- In cybalist@... s.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@ >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@... s.com, Piotr Gasiorowski gpiotr@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Anttila's etymology requires one metathesis of a rather common
> > > type (sonorants swapping places) and _no_ semantic shift
> > > whatsoever, so why should it be considered inferior?
> > >
> > > Yes, but such metathesises are pure speculations. ..
> > >
> > > You cannot demonstrate them (either pro or con) so there is no
> > > value by supposing them
> > >
> > > This is why I regard *sreneh2/4- 'hip' as more adequate to
> > > explain the Latin word. Futhermore, Basque has errain, errein-
> > > 'kidneys' (with protetic e- because Basque doesn't allow for
> > > rhotics at word-initial) from a lost IE language (Italoid aka
> > > IE-Ligurian) .
> >
> > Said Italoid aka IE-Ligurian language might then of course have
> > experienced the same metathesis, which means your argument
> > doesn't fly.
> >
> Torsten, there's no hint that particular metathesis (we're not
> talking about metathesis in general, but this one in particular)
> had ever occurred.

You're beginning to sound like George. There couldn't be one in the first place. Or do you have any idea what type of hint there could be in order for you to accept a metathesis in this case?

Torsten

This is why *sreneh2/4- should take precedence -it doesn't
> need metathesis-.
>
> Octavi�
>