Sporadic exceptions from normal Satem
developments do occur, but they consist in failed satemisation rather than its
excessive application (except in Armenian, which palatalises the *k series as
well, as in <loys> 'light', but that calls for a special explanation
within Armenian). The form <rus'at> is isolated in Indo-Aryan, the verb
root being {ruc} and the remaining derivatives (<roca-, roka-, rocas-,
rokas-, rocis-, ruca-, rocaka-, rocana-, rucira-, rukma-, ...>) showing only
expected reflexes of *leuk-/*louk-/*luk-, as do Iranian (Av. raocah-,
raoxs^na-), Baltic and Slavic forms. It seems more likely that <rus'at> is
an aberrant development within Indo-Aryan than an inherited satemised
form.
OIcel. ljós- < *liuxsa- < *leuk-so-.
The loss of *x as in <ljómi> 'radiance' (OE le:oma, OS liomo) <
*liux-mo:n-.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 1:19 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Scythians, Zoroastrians, etc.
>> Unrelated etymologically (I leave magical relatedness alone).
*ker- and *k^el- are different roots.
Sanskrit also has *roch- "light"
and *rushant- "shining" (I'm sorry about the spelling, this keyboard is set up
screwy. I'm even sorrier about possible misspellings, but I trust you recognize
them anyway).And cf Old Norse <ljo-s>?