Re: [tied] just verifying a point

From: alexmoeller@...
Message: 14917
Date: 2002-09-01

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] just verifying a point

----- Original Message -----
From: alexmoeller@...
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: [tied] just verifying a point

> ... and in the same time we have too thracians antroponims
like Eppa.

Names like Eppo occur in Pannonia and are probably of Celtic
origin (hypocoristic abbreviations of compound 'horsey' names
like Eporedorix). It's hard to say how the labiovelars
developed in Macedonian; let's say that the development of
*k^w, *kW > p is not impossible. In Thracian, however, we find
names like Esbenus, where *k^w > sb (probably /sv/ with
phonetic assimilation --> [zv] or even [zb]).


The problem with Esbenus , Outasbios, Aut-esbios is that we do
not have a clue what they mean.The position of "s" before the
labial makes the things more complicated. Pokorny rebuild the
PIE-radical without "s" and he gives the labiovelare as
palatal for explaining the forms from the satem languages (
skt. asva, av. aspa, old lit. aSva, eSva) where the siflantes
could come frome a palatal labial, and the short wovel "u"
became labio-dental "v" or labial "p". In this case the
thracian antroponims cannot be explained from this radical.
The form without "s" appears without in celtic, osco-umbrian,
macedonian but even in this antroponim Eppo .

> Because someone doubt gratefully about this I should like to
see your opinion about that. The fact of a pre-latin
labialisation of "kW" in thracian and celtic could too be
sustained with teh PIE *akWa which got in romanian "apa" how
the dacian toponims Salapia , Naparis, etc. let us know.

Thracian had no *kW > p rule. As far as I can see, PIE *kW >
Thr. k and PIE *k^w > Thr. sb (see above on the pronunciation
of this cluster). What makes you "explain" Romanian apã as a
substrate word if it can be derived regularly from <aqua>?
*h2ap- 'river, flowing water' is a different PIE root. It may
have existed in Illyrian/Messapic, judging from the hydronymy
of those areas (Salapia is in Italy, isn't it? so why do you
call it "Dacian"? and it doesn't seem to make any sense to
divide Naparis into N-apa-ris). It seems that the Dacian words
for 'water' were based od *ud-, *ud-sk^o- (cf. Alb. ujë).

Thracian had no *kW> p rule? Why this? The example with
Esbenus & Co does not help because we do not know what this
mean and from which radical they comme..So far I know Salapia
is in Romania not in Italy.And beside Naparis there is for
actually river Siret a name where i cannot distingue well if
there is Agarus or Aparus Fluvium.I do not have a second
source to verify if Agarus or Aparus.There is too a word for
serpent from substrate which is called "nãpârcã".What does
inspire you to say that the dacian words are based on *ud ?
These nouns "ud, uda, udeala" are to find in romanian
language too. I was informed that at the time as the latins
camme in Balcans the noun "udus" was no more in use beeing an
arhaic word and replaced with "humidus". The word "udus"
should be found just at Varro. But is interesting to know
which clusters from Dacian hidronomy will tell us that the
radical for water was *ud and not *akWa.