Re: [tied] Slavic hawk-word

No, he rejects explanation of açor/azor < astur or accipiter

----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Slavic hawk-word


> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 14:18:15 -0200, "João S. Lopes Filho"
> <jodan99@...> wrote:
>
> >You're right. According to Antenor Nascentes' Etymological Dictionary
:açor,
> >do Latim acceptore, *ac'ptor, *açtor. "Meyer-Lübke rejects Latin accipter
> >and astur.
>
> Do you mean he rejects a connection between <accipiter> and <astur>?
>
> >I didnt know astur was Late Latin, the suffix seems the same as vultur.
>
> In Sergejus' message it said: "Mayer: akin to Late Latin astur 'hawk'
> < Messap. < PIE *astr, cf. Latin uultur 'kite' [cf. for the ending, I
> presume --mcv]."
>
> The (only) attestation I found seems to be from AD 354, which I
> suppose qualifies as Late Latin (AD 476 end of the Western Empire).
> The question is whether that is late enough for a vulgar form
> *aç(ç)t(t)Ure < *ACCEPTO:RE. We have:
>
> 1. change of conjugation (-tr->-tor-)
> 2. assibilation of ci > c^/ç
> 3. loss of unstressed i
> 4. assimilation pt > tt
> 5. vowel timbre change /o:/ and /u/ > /U/ ~ /o./
>
> The Appendix Probi, from the 3rd or 4th century AD, shows examples of
> 1 (sort of: teter non tetrus), 3. (calida non calda, frigida non
> fricda), 4 (sort of: auctor non autor) and 5 (sobrius non suber).
> The assibilation of /ki/ is probably attested already AD 179 (terciae
> for tertiae, and frequent 2nd./3rd. c. spellings of -tius as -tzus).
> I'd say a case could be made for <astur> as a, mutatis mutandis,
> prakritism.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>