Re: [tied] Elbow, forearm

I am sorry, because I haven't read the Mr. Vidal message. So, we may
say: Beside llanë/llërë, in Albanian the cognates of this word are
bërryl < *bher- + hu:ln,

> with diphthongation of long u: > ui > y and /ll/>/l/ in

intervocalic

> position, due to the assimilation of cluster /-ln-/ > /ll/. It is
> present also in kërryl 'turn of bow' < kër- + hu:ln-,
> kërryle 'bended stick', etc.
> I think that Trukish <el> 'hand', and Persina <arshin> 'elbow'
> testifies for common word in (Pre-)Proto-Indo-European.
>
> Konushevci
> ************
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
> > 23-06-03 01:58, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> >
> > > I gather that 'ablaut now holds few
> > > secrets'. How do the various words
> > > for elbow, forearm, e.g. English
> > > 'ell', Latin 'ulna', Greek
> > > 'o:lene:', 'o:le:r' and 'o:llon' all
> > > relate? I've seen the
> > > Proto-Germanic form cited as
> > > *alina:; is this an alternative
> > > notation for *alino:?
> >
> > Yes, its OED-ese for *alino:. Lat. ulna < *olVna: (with syncope,
> hence
> > no assimilation of -ln- > -ll-), whereas Celtic forms (Ir.
> uileann, Wel.
> > elin, etc.) point to *oli:na:, I think. So, in that group of
> languages,
> > only the suffix shows ablaut. Goth. aleina 'cubit' is treated as

a

> > scribal mistake (for expected *alina) by the OED, but it could

be

> > anything else, from a Gaulish loan to a remodelled variant of

the

> > inherited form. I think the most parsimonious analysis for all

of

> the
> > above is *ole:n-/*olen- with feminine *-a: added to an

originally

> nasal
> > stem.
> >
> > Baltic and Slavic have short-vowelled *alk-/*elk- (the latter
> perhaps
> > secondary) plus various suffixes (e.g. PSl. *olkUtI) in
> their 'elbow'
> > words, but Baltic also shows a puzzling long-vowel set, cf.

Latv.

> > elkonis 'elbow' but olekts 'ell', Lith. uolekti`s (< *o:lek-t-).
> If, as
> > usually assumed, they are related to <ulna> & co., the *-k-
> > (diminutive?) must have replaced the original stem formant

already

> in
> > Proto-Balto-Slavic, but don't ask me how and why it happened. I
> doubt
> > very much if it makes sense to assign Indo-Iranian *aratn- (no
> > Brugmannian length in the fist syllable, which means *e rather
> than *o)
> > to the same etymon, pace Pokorny.
> >
> > Greek shows a long vowel consistently in <o:le:n>, <o:lene:> and
> > <o:llon> (< *o:ln-o-), forms that otherwise look parallel to the
> Italic,
> > Celtic and Germanic ones. The whole thing is difficult to

analyse,

> > though not unprecedented. It resembles the variation we find in
> Gmc.
> > naman- vs. Lat. no:men, Gk. ono:ma. Perhaps there was an

original

> > paradigm with an underlying long vowel, e.g. nom.sg. *h3ó:ln.,
> oblique
> > *h3olén-, secondary forms *h3olé:n ~ *h3o:lé:n (oblique *h3o(:)l-
> en-).
> > Jens, Miguel, Glen or anyone whose opinions about pre-PIE are

more

> > confident than mine will perhaps see one of their patterns here.