Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> 15-01-04 23:10, Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
>> I think it is undule harsh to describe the derivation of _$arpe_ /
>> _$erpe_ from <serpens> as irregular. In particular, there is no
>> appeal to analogy, dissimilation or assimilation.
>
> If fact, it's just as straightforward and phonologically regular as,
> say, <pãrinte> from <parens>/<parentem> or <pieptene> from
> <pecten>/<pectinem>. The generalisation of the Latin nom.sg. rather
> than the oblique stem is rare but neither impossible nor
> unprecedented.
>
> Piotr
one can see the things how one likes. So far I have from Latin "plâns"
with final "-ns" I am not allowed to say the "Sarpe" is derived from
serpens with lost of "n". It is simply not allowed. I don't want to
point more to the bloody nominative/accusative game. What is expected
one should have had from a PIE root as serp-? thowoobadu? that is simply
a streight evolution of se > Sa and nothing more.
How on the earth want one to say it derived from Latin serpens and not
from IE *serp- ? Is there any scientifical, any sure posiblity to say
"it is excluded to derive straight from IE bypassing latin?"
The PIE root has no nasal here, the Rom. word has none, the Alb. word
has none, but I have to accept it derived from a certain dialectal form
of Latin where already in Latin the infix "n" was lost.
That appears funny and not at all scientifical. At least I don't see any
argument for sustaining it is more probable the posiblity of *serpens >
Sarpe ( what about ns > s > i here Piotr??????????) als the probability
of *serp- >Sarpe _even_ in a satem language? Where is the absolutely
Latin feature here which differentiated the word from PIE root and which
let no other way as to derive it without the help of Latin?
Where is that? There is no one. OK, we loose the time that way. There
are roots which does not change too much in 5000 years and there are
roots they do change. ( see Latin "palma" > Rom. "palma"= 2000 years of
attestation).
The root *serp- is one of these roots they do not change too much and
there is nothing on the earth which oblige us to go with that word
trough a Latin filter since there is _no need_.
that have been my truly 2 cents here because of Oçam's obsession.
Alex