From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 26771
Date: 2003-11-01
> Richard Wordingham wrote:not
>
> >> transform in the same manner:
> >> lucta -> lupt~a ;
> >
> > -ct- > -pt- does seem unusual, but -pt- > -ct- occurs in the
> > development of Proto-Celtic from PIE. The change -xt- > -ft- is
> > unknown, though - it occurred in the development of ModernEnglish
> > from Middle English.does it
>
> Nice is that we just constate the change of "ct" to "pt" but how
> works? There is no "labialisation" of "c" since the next consonantis a
> dental". I suppose as follow:versus "pt" I
> For getting a phonological path which works of this "ct"
> guess the examples with the "shiboleth" won't be bad. Since weknow the
> alternance "pi/ki" and "bi/g'i" one can assume there we have hadto deal
> with "kit" instead of "ct" in the atested Latin "lucta".I think the change ct > pt has to be discussed in the context of the
> The etymolofy of Latin "hodie" seems toin it,
> be unsatisfactory since there should be no connection with "diem"
> thing I think is wrong. Interesting are the inscriptionsfor "hodie"
> where they appear as "oze", or by Isid. "ozie", which looks veryunknown
> appropiate to Rom. "azi".
> P.S. Latin "hodie" meant in Late Latin "now" too. This sense is
> in Rom.I see no great problem with the etymology of _ho:die:_. Latin
> Which is the etymology of Greek "cyclopus"? is thery anythingrelated to
> "eye and face"?Hesiod says _kuklo:ps_ (e.g. Polyphemus) means round-eyed, which