--- In email@example.com
, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > Regarding /t/ vs. /l/ --does Ulixes/Ulysses vs Odysseues figure
> > in?
> I remember an etymology of Odeysseus as a hypochoristic from
> *o-duk-yV-, something like "he who leads" (the people on to the
> beach for battle vel sim.). It just occurred to me that if PPIE
> *du:k- was really *Luk-, that would explain both *o-duk-yV- and
> Also I think *Luk- is actually the same as the *Lum- (*Lun,- ?)
> "people" word and that this word, which seems to appear where
> *kan,-t- "division, faction, (orderly) element of battle formation"
> should be seen as contrast to that word, thus meaning "the whole
> people as such, the unordered people, the people stretched out in a
> row, non-battle-formation), which means it becomes related to the
> *dlun,- "long" word.
Then there's the fish connection:
Grzegorz Jagodzinski pointed out that gingiva "gum" belongs here too
(his point 24), along with other interesting anlaut groups
I propose *Lun,W-a- -> *glungWa -> *gingiva.
New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin
has (pp. 102-3):
'Prior to the historical period, there was a general and therefore presumably very early depalatalization. Another indication of its early date is the high degree of uniformity of the reflexes in the various dialects, which would be implausible if they had been developing independently along such lines for any period of time.2 The only dialectal division to speak of is seen in the treatment of PG *c^c^ (of whatever source): the result is -tt- in Attic and Boeotian, as well as the West Ionic of Eretria and Oropos, but -ss- in all other dialects. '
'G glo:~ssa, -tta f. 'tongue' < *glo:kh-ya-
(a word of disputed etymology, but the point is the same whether the word is connected with
G glo:khí:s 'arrowhead' or
I propose *Lun,gWH-ya- -> *glo:c^c^a-. That means both
glo:khís <- *Lu:gWH-í- and
dolikhós <- *Lu:gWH-ó-
get to join the party, but obviously as substrate.