From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 26780
Date: 2003-11-01
>Nice is that we just constate the change of "ct" to "pt" but how does itNonsense.
>works? There is no "labialisation" of "c" since the next consonant is a
>dental". I suppose as follow:
>For getting a phonological path which works of this "ct" versus "pt" I
>guess the examples with the "shiboleth" won't be bad. Since we know the
>alternance "pi/ki" and "bi/g'i" one can assume there we have had to deal
>with "kit" instead of "ct" in the atested Latin "lucta".
>Since we know the PIE root is "lug-" this is not a bad assumption. We
>have the group "ct" just in the Latin word, thus there is no impediment
>to think that there has been an "luki-to" where in Latin the "i"
>sincoped and we got "lucto".
>Actually "zi" is a short form and not the "interited" one. The Rom. wordziuã is a backformation on ziua < die(s)-illa.
>is "ziuã" and this cannot derive from simple Latin "dies".
>I guess that even the word for "today" which is "azi" is not aNonsense. The etymology is clear: <ho: die:> "on this day".
>derivative of "a" + "zi" as explained by shcolars but is to see in
>corelation with Latin "hodie:". The etymolofy of Latin "hodie" seems to
>be unsatisfactory since there should be no connection with "diem" in it,
>Which is the etymology of Greek "cyclopus"? is thery anything related tokuklo:ps from <kuklos> "circle" and <o:ps> (< *o:kW-) "eye".
>"eye and face"?