Re: [tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:42:12 +0200, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>21-04-2004 17:38, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> A dedicated soundlaw *ph2t- > st- would be a bit too ad hoc.
>
>There remains the possibility that the etymology is wrong. Kortlandt
>(1982, _Folia Linguistica Historica_ III/1 pp. 25-27) rejects it:
>
>"This connection cannot be maintained. It does not seem possible to
>separate _stryjI_ 'uncle' (ORu. also _strUjI_) from Lith. stru`jus
>'uncle', OLith. _stru:jus_ (Dauks^a) 'grandfather, old man', OIr.
>_sruith_ 'old, honourable'. The comparison with Skt. _pitrvya`-_ [sic!
>PG] and OHG _fatureo_ < *_fadurwia-_ is fallacious because the
>corresponding Slavic form would be **_tIrvl'I_."

See also
http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/personal/jg/html/jg2001a.htm

I don't agree. The Lith. words can easily be loanwords from
Slavic stryjI/strUjI. The maning "father's brother" follows
naturally if derived from *p&2ter-, while "old man" >
"father's brother" is much less evident semantically.
Kortlandt's second argument is of course fallacious, because
strUjI/stryjI doesn't come from *p&2tr.wiyo- but from a
parallel formation *p&tru(h2)-yó- (Grk. patruiós ~
me:truiá:, Arm. mawru, Lat. patruus).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...