From: stlatos
Message: 69886
Date: 2012-06-29
>If ruscum is a native L word, and I have no reason to think otherwise, it's related to 'rust' and 'red' from the color of its berries. Its slight similarity to * wrizgo:n \ * brizgo:n \ etc. is just coincidental (as cognate words cover all types of plant( part)s, some of which happen to be named after other features instead).
> > > What possible reason is there to assume an unknown *gWHris-
> instead of the widely-seen form for
> > > root/branch/plant that was discussed earlier (such as * wrizga: > *
> gW- > gwrysg = branch W; * wrizga: > *
> > > wirzga: > virga = rod/shoot/twig L; etc.)?
> > >
> > > If simply Celtic, in some dia./lng. w- > v- (borrowed as either f or
> b , just as the sounds in Osc.-Umb.
> > > Latin), and in others (sim. to Welsh above) w- > gW- (borrowed as
> g-). Only one group of languages is
> > > needed; one already known and w speakers known to have lived there:
> Celtic.
> > >
> > > There's also brisgean = silver-weed, brisgein = white tansy Gael;
> which is more ev. than you have for any
> > > C/V/Ligurian tri-borrowing.
> >
> > As usual, you ignore semantics in order to lump unrelated words
> together. As most of its names imply, Ruscus aculeatus is a prickly
> shrub, not a 'rod' or a 'silver weed'.
> >
> Although I disagree with slatos' etymology, I must agree with him in
> this word having initial *wr-, as in Latin ru:scus.
>