--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
> >> Unrelated etymologically (I leave magical relatedness alone).
*ker- and *k^el- are different roots.
>
Yes, yes. "sporadic", "isolated" and "aberrant".
Anyway, I was using Bartleby's *kel- 1 "cover, conceal, save" (which
includes the "hat" words) and *kel- 2 "to be prominent, hill". One of
the questions was whether these two roots had overlapping semantics.
Look here
http://atamanhotel.com/whc/hattusa-yazilikaya-relief.html#146
From the scene with the figures 41 - 46 it is obvious that "hat"
and "hill" might not be so different after all: the personified
mountains are dressed like the hat worn by the god standing on them.
And the result is then a trinity of mountains.
And if the semantics can be brought to match, it would be possible to
assemble at least the kentum reflexes of the two roots under one hat,
so to speak.
Torsten