Re: [tied] Re: again Slavic "dragU"

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 22:09:21 +0000, Abdullah Konushevci
<a_konushevci@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 18:28:58 +0000, Abdullah Konushevci
>> <a_konushevci@...> wrote:
>>
>> >> We are aware of the liquid metathesis. It affects the
>> >> _diphthongs_ /el/, /er/, /ol/ (or */al/), /or/ (or */ar/).
>> >
>> >[AK]
>> >We have completly different view about diphthongs.
>>
>> In Balto-Slavic linguistics, Vl, Vr, Vm, Vn are considered
>> diphthongs.
>
>[AK]
>OK. It's the matter of Balto-Slavic linguistics not of PIE in general.

Actually, it's likely to be a thing of PIE in general. As
far as I know, there are no words reconstructable for the
PIE period that contain triphthongs like *eur, *oil, etc.
Any combination of vowel (*e or *o) and resonant (*w, *y,
*l, *r, *m, *n) counts as a diphthong.

>[AK]
>But, according to Derksen, which I haven't now at hand, it must be
>*do:rgU.

But that isn't a PIE long /o:/ (otherwise Derksen would have
written *da:rgU or, I don't know, *da`rgU). It's a Slavic
/o/, from PIE short */o/. The metathesis in South Slavic and
Southern West-Slavic caused it to lengthen to /ro:/ => /ra/,
but Northern West Slavic and East Slavic clearly show that
it was /o/ (Pol. drogi, Russ. dorogoj).

>You leave Pokorny's etymology in previous message. So,
>Common Slavic root *dorgU is without any cognates in other languages.
>Do you find this explanation reasonable?

Yes (there is a Latvian cognate, drags). Lots of words in
Slavic have no (exact) cognate elsewhere, or only in Baltic.
The antonym of Polish drogi (tani, "cheap") has no cognates
outside Polish [I sometimes tease my wife by calling her
Moja droga Tania, moja tania Droga].

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