Re: [tied] just verifying a point

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 14974
Date: 2002-09-02

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:29:28 +0200, alexmoeller@... wrote:

>[Moeller] You dont like to see a fact. You have as fallow:
>a celtic teonim =Epona= godess of horses
>a thracian Antroponim = Eppo, meaning (?)

Attested where?

>a thracian antroponim =Esbenus, meaning (?)
>a romanian word called "iapa"

Transparently from Latin equa.

>> Sorry, Alex, but I sometimes get the impression that you can't read. First, the 'horse' word is *ek^wos, not *ekWos (got it? or shall I repeat?). Secondly, Thracian is a Satem language, and PIE *k^ > Thracian s. Thirdly, PIE *w > Thracian b (probably pronounced as a fricative, i.e. [v]). To sum up, *-k^w- > -sb-, and therefore *ek^wos > esba-. Got it at last? It was all there in the previous messages.
>[Moeller] No. How you see romanian did not made this "v" ="b" so quick as in another romanic languages. That shouls sound curious for a linguist. But like allways, such things can be ignorated too.Have you ever took a look how many words in romanian begina with "b"? Let us put there and the words prefixed with "a" before "b" and you will wonder how much there are. Please, do not make me to look in dictionary how many are, I am crazy enough to take page with page for counting them:-))

Romanian has b and v exactly as the other Romance languages (except Spanish,
where v > b). Initially, Latin b- gives b-, Latin v- gives v-, with occasional
confusions as in Rom. bãtrân. Between vowels, Latin -b- and -v- give -v- (and
then zero in Romanian, as in caballu > caval > cal, or pavimentu > pamînt
[that's the real etymology, not that szajs from Vinereanu]).

This has nothing to do with the satem evolution of *k^w (> sv, sb).

>[Moeller] Vinerean :"short vowel *e" for ek^Wos:
>PIE *ek'uus, ek'ua>proto-troco-dacian *epa>traco-daca *iepa>romanian >iapa. This is the explanation of Mr Vinerean.

PIE *ek^wos, *ek^wa: > Latin equus, equa > Romanian *iepa > *ieapa > iapã. This
is the explanation of everyone else.

>The "kW" in ekwos belongs to me, I have to support the mess for "ekwos".
>You will observe thata iapa in plural form in rumanian is iepe the same "ie" there if you will ask you why from *epa>"iepa"

That's a Romanian soundlaw [/ie/ > /iea/ > /ia/ before -a or -e in the final
syllable: herba > iarbã, petra > piatrã. Nothing to do with Thracian.

>I repeat myself. why is thracian a satem language? Give me please the characteristics which make of thracian a satem language. Which are they?

There are only a handful of Thracian inscriptions, but what little is known
(mostly glosses) seems to point to a satem language: zalmos "helmet", byzas
"he-goat", resos "king", sabazios "free", semele "earth", diza "fortress".

>But to recall the "p" cluster of thracian or dacian and I want to tell me where do you see here that "kw">s

Sigh. *kW > *k in satem languages.

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal