Re: [tied] Re: *gwistis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:44 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: *gwistis


--- In cybalist@..., alexmoeller@... wrote:
> I don't have a idea how the Latin "digitus" will derive from
> the PIE radical.

The assumption is that we have yet another case of an
unexplained
variation in a guttural, and that it is a modification of
Latin
*dicitus, from the PIE root *deik^ 'show', in this case with
the sense
'point'. A parallel derivation is the Proto-Germanic for toe,
*taix(w)o:n-, from the same root. Presumably it originally
meant both
'finger' and 'toe' in Proto-Germanic.

> But I know the Romanian "Deget"< lat.
> digitus is a new word in the language.

As a matter of curiosity, how do you know this?

[Moeller] sorry. I forgot to put (""). I learned from the
romanian lingusitic books that the rom word deget < lat.
digitus.

> The old one , still in
> use, in fact very in use is "de$t". So far I am informed,
> the Albanians have too "de$t" The plural form from de$t is
> de$ti. The PIE *gwistis with the rule of Vinereanu *gw
> followed by "e" or "i" >ge would give in Romanian gesti.
The
> rule in Romanian I explained ( st followed by e or i > $t)
> will make from gesti>ge$t. The plural form of ge$ti is in
> fact the same as PIE *gwesti. Even if in the articulation
of
> the "ge" in pronunciation of this word is almost the same as
> of "de", it still does not explain why "ge" went "de".
>
> Any idea how to explain that? ( ge >de)
>
> P.S. One can argue the "desht" is a peasant form from Latin
> digitus, Romanian deget. The argumentation is , the
Romanian
> "ge" before "st" sincoped and st went "$t" under the
> influence of last "i" from plural ( Rule: st followed by i
or
> e >$t) If for st>$t the argument is OK there is no
> explanation for sincoping of "ge". Deget is a easy word to
> speak and a short one, why sincoping?

> Opinions?

Latin digitus seems to be exactly the sort of word that would
syncopate, digitus > *digtus > *dictus. However, I am not
sure that
it did, for while French doigt - the g' has been silent since
it was
re-introduced - is consistent with vulgar Latin *dictus, I
would
expect Spanish *decho, not dedo as we actually have. I am not
sure
about Italian dito, but again I would expect -tt-, not -t-, if
it
derived from *dictus. The alternative evolutionary path is to
drop
the /g/ and merge the vowels.

[Moeller] for me is very clear that even with sincoping of "i"
we will have "digtus". But you will never get an "$t" here.you
need an -e- or -i - for getting a "$t". What is very
interesting is that "$t" appear only when st was fallowed by
"e" or "i" but that it did not always went "$t". Hmm.. I think
now just at the conjugation.odf the person III sg. of "to be".
If we have I am= eu sânt, you are= tu e$ti, we have tough s/he
it is= el este.And no rumanian will say "e$te" even if s/he
says pe$te:-))
And for the othere verbs which have the sufix "e$te" at the
pers III sg. there is no exception. There is allways "e$te"
but not "este"
vorbeshte, graieshte, gândeshte, amurgeshte, amageshte,
cantareshte, povesteshte, fãtzuieshte, etc..


Syncopation in Romanian would have proceeded degetu > *degtu
/dedZtu/
> *deçtu > de$tu > de$t; only the vowel, not the whole
syllable, is
syncopated.

Now, if there were also a plural *ge$ti in Romanian, the
parallel of
*ge$ti might have encouraged a 'slurred' pronunciation of
'degeti' as
'de$ti'. But the process probably needed no encouragement.

Richard.

[Moeller]this is a argument which make me to ask if this
indeed really happened. The rumanin lingusits "reconstruct"
and make a lot of analaogies like " there is a levis in latin,
ok there msut have been a grevis too." Why should learn someon
the plural form and from this plural to make a singular on his
own way?