From: João Simões Lopes Filho
Message: 18677
Date: 2003-02-10
----- Original Message -----From: CheSent: Monday, February 10, 2003 8:02 AMSubject: Re: [tied] LupusIsn'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 GasiorowskiSent: Monday, February 10, 2003 11:28 AMSubject: 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.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.