Re: [tied] The word for horse

----- Original Message -----
From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] The word for horse


> Let us observe what in Slavic the
> derivatives from PIE *kal--- looks like:
> *kal2="", *kal3="", kalap (swan)=kolpik, *kalka (heel)= klika, *kall (
> to molest)="", *kalni (path)= klanec, *kalso="".

These words (some of which I don't recognise) have nothing to do with *kaliti- (Pokorny's *kal-(1)!). Perhaps *kal-ni- 'passage, path' is related ('hard' = 'beaten, trodden'), but even that is speculation.

> The first one reason I asked, was the missing of Methathesis in the word "kaliti" but it seems this was not a Word where to be made a Methathesis. I searced for these roots for seeing if there _must_ have
been a methathesis, but it seems , it was no "must".

Metathesis operated IF AND ONLY IF if PSl. *-er-, *-el-, *-or or *-ol- was followed BY A CONSONANT. This is why you have metathesis in *koln- > (Czech and S Slavic) klan-, but not in *kali-

> Now to the Romanian word "cãli". Why should be Slavic? There are 2
reasons: - no rothacism of "l" - the "i" in "cãli" like in Slavic.

... and the same meaning. It's important to understand that the *-i- in Slavic is not an arbitrary embellishment but a verb-stem forming suffix with a specific (causative) function.


> no rothacism:
>
> Here follows some Rom. examples with no rothacism of the "l" which have
> cognates in Latin words with an normal "l" and no geminate "ll" where
> the semantism is OK and the phonetically form appropriate:
> -lat. colostra, Rom "colastra"
> -Lat."velum" , Rom "vãl"

Both (especially <colastrã>) appear to have been borrowed rather than inherited, though a second opinion on this would be welcome.

> -Lat. eligere , Rom. "alege"(!)-DEX dim. form "allegere"
> -Lat anulus , Rom. "inel" (!)-DEX= dim. form "anellus"

The phonological development of these words shows that DEX is right. The Romanian vowels don't match your supposed Latin prototypes. <á:nulus> certainly could not develop into anything remotely like <inel>, while <a:néllus> is well attested even in Classical Latin (cf. also It. anello). So is <allegere>, of course. Can't find them in your Latin dictionary?

> -Lat. oleum , Rom. "ulei" (!)-DEX= slav. "olej"

Right. There would have been no rhotacism even if the word were inherited (oleu- > *olju-, with palatalisation blocking rhotacism), but it does look Slavic.

> -Lat. coloris , Rom. "culoare"

Dissimilaton, I suppose, as in pilgrim <-- peregri:nus.

Piotr