From: alex_lycos
Message: 19268
Date: 2003-02-26
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard.wordingham@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:34 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: PIE *kwokt
>
> But what happened to Latin words is highly relevant if Latin and
> Dacian (or whatever) elements both had /kw/ (or similar) at some
> stage in the Romanian language. The words would have undergone the
> same sound changes whatever their origin
>
> Note that a Satem /kw/ would derive from PIE /kw/, as opposed
> to /k^w/ (as in ek^wos 'horse')
>
> Richard
This is my opinion too. Normally a speaker should not make any
difference more when using a word, about the origin of this word. Once a
word entered the language and become used, it is threaten as an "own"
word of his/her language ( mostly) thus, the eventually phonetically
changes will affect _all_ words, regardless the origin of them. The only
one explanation for a different treatment should be the end of the
phonetically change. In this case if I assume that in Thracian "zãul"
was the Latin "deus" I must assume the palathalisation of PIE "*d" was
closed in that language or, it was just beginning. But we know the
Thracian form with "z" for centuries and I am very doubtful a phoenomena
could keep 600-700 years from the first attestation of "zalmos" until
the time romans arrived in Balcans, but I do not exclude it at all. I do
not believe this is an accident that in the geographic place where we
have attested the form with "z" for a Latin "d" , centuries later the
phenomena will repeat itself for a new folk. It seems illogically and it
seems to be just an idea for supplying a theoretically support to a
given thesis as derivation of a language from a another language. The
same should be said about "aqua" = "apa" the same should be said for
"ct"="pt" , for "-cula"= "cla" and so on. There is not a singular aspect
but a chain of them. And it seems it is not correct to see them just as
"late evolution" but in the same time to say " we know nothing about
ancient languages of Balcan" ignoring the known connection between the
supposed "mother-language" and the supposed " died languages". The
assumption that Dacian, Thracian are related to Indo-Avestan languages
more as Latin or Greek has _no_ support. Beside the fact the Latins &
Greeks and Celts and Germanic have been here in the same space and the
Indo-Avestans somewhere else thus the relatioship should be closer to
these groups as to the Indo-Avestan one. The Greek form "ipo" for
"ek'wos" is the same as romanian "iapa" thus the "late Latin evolution"
should be here already questionable. I am a bit too saturated for these
"late Latin evolutions" for phenomena which are attested in the time of
Latin and before Latin and -what a wonder- they repeat themselves in the
same geographical space. I am tired to see Rom. "vitsea" as a derivative
from a diminutive forms of Latin 'vitella' when everywhere is the PIE
*vits- as root ( see Germanic , Albanian forms but too Sanskrit and
Avestan forms but see the too the Latin regular form)
I have in Rom. language the word "vita" the mother of the vitsea and
vitsel and _it was_ something similar in Latin since in Latin is the
word _veterinarus_ which is related to "Zugvieh" as in Romanian the word
for "vitã" means.
I am very sceptically about the phonologic rules when a short "i" can
become an "a" or remain an "i"
( se demonstration of Miguel for virdia> varza but vipera > viperã.
Miguel seems to forget the latin word for "varza" which is "brassica"
which is given by some scholars as PIE *bherag- and the possibilities we
have from this point here)