"piotr gasiorowski" <
gpiot-@...> wrote:
original article:
http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist/?start=917
> PIE *xrtkos > *rtk'os > *irtsu > *jIrsU (I, U = yers, i.e.
reduced vowels). But the sequence *rtk is so uncommon that it's
difficult to say what its "regular" development should be (moreover, it
was prone to metathesis). The initial syllabic *r is another problem.
An alternative development would have given *urtsu > *wUrsU. I'd
predict hypothetical Polish *jars/wars, Russian *jors/vors, etc.
Suspiciously similar to Latin ursus, in fact.
>
> Piotr
Hi Piotr,
So you think that the [t] for sure would be dropped? The reconstruction
for Proto-Celtic is sth. like *artos, is it not? If I wanted to
hypothesize something like PIE *xrtkos > *r@...'os > PS *rUtsU, or
maybe *r@... > *rUtU
for P-S, would I be completely off the mark?
The thing is, a few years ago I met some old people in the Urals in
Russia who, while foraging for berries and mushrooms in the forest,
used the word "rUtik" as an affectionate nickname for their grandchild,
. When asked what they meant by this word they said: "Look at him, how
he finds all those mushrooms where we've already looked, he's like a
bear cub". But when asked if "rUtik" meant a bear cub they only
shrugged.
So if -ik is a diminutive-affectionate suffix, see where I'm going? Of
course this needs to be verified by polling more locals to see if they
know or use such a word, but I just wanted to see if it's at all worth
pursuing.
Gene