Re: Latin pinso etc.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> 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

************
Dear Alex,
I am afraid that Rom. Sarpe < *serp- is an intermediary form of Alb.
gjarp-ër <Sarp(e) < *Sjarp-, due to Pedersen's low that PIE /*s/,
followed by palatals vowel, yields in Albanian /gj/ </sh/, especially
before consonantal clusters (/*e/ > Alb. /ja/ as Mr. Rasmussen
claimed, replying on my post about the outcomes of PIE /*e/ in
Albanian; cf. *s(w)eks- > gjashtë 'six'). Its archaic form was
preserved also in <shtërpinj> 'snakes' with introducing one
parasitic /t/.

Konushevci