Re: [tied] spylian (PIE part)

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 8:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] spylian (PIE part)
>
>
>
>> In so far, I agree that the hypothesis of a loan from Germanic is not
>> correct ; I go further with my toughs and I suppose there is a PIE
>> root which allowed the Germanic form and the Romanian and Albanian
>> form. A root like "*sp(h)el(e)"- should be a very good candidate for
>> Romanian and Germanic but I don't know how Albanian will react here
>
> PGmc. *ul may indeed reflect PIE *[l.] (syllabic */l/), which would
> probably require a root like *spelH- (*spl.H- > Gmc. *spul-). The
> vocalism could be made to work. Unfortunately, there are those other
> problems I mentioned (apart from there being no independent
> attestation of such a root with a meaning 'rinse, wash out' or
> similar). Initial *sp- should have given Albanian /p-/, and *l should
> have been rhotacised in Romanian

Hmmmm.. in Albanian is an another word "spalce:"=
Waschlappen.=washcloth, an another "shparge:r"= windel= napkin, diaper.

But:
alb, shpote:= german Spott , same semantism , I know no PIE root here
alb. spe:rkitje= german sprühen, same semantism, PIE *(s)phere-
alb, spikth = german Specht, same semantism, I know no PIE root here.

It can be these are all simple coincidences or simple loans ?

>>
>> P.S
>> If the rhotacism in Romanian is so important in your eyes, there can
>> be the root "*sp(h)ell(e)-" as well :-)))))
>
>
> The PIE morpheme-structure constraints rule out this possibility.
> *-ll- doesn't occur in PIE morphemes
>
> Piotr

I did not know that Piotr. Thank you. Now, knowing it, it gives me more
head aches with the rhotacism of intervocalic "l" in Romanian then.

Alex