Daniel J. Milton wrote:
> I don't know what dictionary Alex is quoting from, but
Walde-Hofmann, it fits with what you show from Pokorny. The Cassel's
root "tag" seems to be too funny for having "g" > "l"
>
> If someone can make sense of all this, please explain.
> Dan
This was my opinon too. I cannot make the head and the tail of all this.
And none of them means "to cut" or to "splint."
The semantic point of "pfal" is to find just in Rom. in the word "TãruS"
which si not a derivatve from Latin, and of course seems to be unknown
to people who analysed that word.
The word in Rom. should have been *tel- . The other cognates given by
different dictionaries ( we quotted from 3 of them untill now) shows
just implausibely cognates. It should be interesting to know how deduced
Pokorny that ta:lia:re was "urprunglich Zweige schneiden" since as per
Miguels view, from the cutted stock derived the meaning "to cut" but not
contrary.
Teh root *del-3 has the meaning we look for, but the PIE d > t in Latin
seems unlikely and from *del-3 just the germanics rendered a "t" there.
Alex