Re: [tied] Lupus

From: Che
Message: 18675
Date: 2003-02-10

Isn't eng. wolf rather related to lat. vulpes "fox"? Then isn't it actually kind of "wild dog"? And do we have here two developments from the same root 1. vulpes 2. (w)lupus?
----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Lupus


----- Original Message -----
From: <richard.wordingham@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 11:09 AM
Subject: [tied] Lupus


> Why is Latin lupus 'wolf' lupus rather than +vulpus?  Is there a rule
> l.kW > lukW parallel to the development of Greek lukos from PIE
> *wl.kWos?  I presume similar arguments apply whether you accept PIE
> *wl.kWos or elaborate PIE to have wl.pWos to neatly account for
> Germanic *wulfaz.  (There appears a 'lesser wild dog' root with
> consonants wlp - see
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/14885 for a list.)

Sporadic metathesis of *wR. > Ru has to be assumed in some cases. Cf. *kW(e)tru- < *kW(e)twr.- (Lat. quadru-, Gaul. petru-, Av. c^atrus^ 'four times').

Piotr


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.