Re: Whence Grimm?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "CG" <sonno3@...> wrote:

> > True in principle, but I don't think it applies here. If the

last

> > half of *saDula is the "tool" suffix PIE *-tlo, the first half
> would
> > be *sed- and not any other ablaut form, judging from the
> other "seat"
> > words, and /e/ > /a/ is characteristic of the II languages. That
> > together with the general assumption that the saddle is a
> Sarmatian
> > invention makes the idea that *saDula is a loanword from an II
> > language at least plausible.
>
> The sources that I have consulted says that English saddle (OE

setl,

> OHG sezzal) comes from PIE *sed-lo-m (EIEC) or an o-grade *sod-

dhlo-

> m (Watkins, DIER). Gaulish has sedlon and Latin has sella
> (<*sedla:), neither of which can be derived from an II *saDula.

I don't think there is much problem with the e-grade family (English
_settle_, OE _setl_, Middle Dutch _setel_, Gothic sitls plus forms
above). The problem is with the isolated Germanic family of English
_saddle_, OE _sadol_, Middle Dutch _sadel_, OHG _satal_, _satul_ ON
_so,ðull_ . Onions says, "perhaps ultimately (but not immediately)
to be referred to the o-grade of IE *sed- 'sit'".

We already have West Germanic *paþa 'path' from Indo-Iranian.

Richard.