--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:41:02 +0000, alexandru_mg3
> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> >So we have:
> >
> >a) Lith: s^love: 'honour' < Balto-Slavic *clo:u- < PIE *k'le:u-
> >
> >but
> >
> >b) Lith: klausyti 'to listen' < Balto-Slavic *klau- < PIE *k'lou-
>
>
> */e:/ doesn't give */o:/ in Balto-Slavic, and Balto-Slavic
> */o:/ doesn't give /o/ in Lithuanian.
>
> s^love: < *s^la:vija:, like Slavic slava (*s^la:va:), from
> Balto-Slavic lengthened *s^laaw- <= *s^law- < PIE *k^low-.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
Please see Derksen:
url:
http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?
root=leiden&morpho=0&basename=\data\ie\slav&first=1351
see Derksen:
"
Proto-Slavic form: slava
[...]
Old Church Slavic: slava `fame'
[...]
Proto-Balto-Slavic reconstruction: s'lo:u()
Lithuanian: love `honour, fame' love 'honour, fame'
Latvian: slava `rumour, reputation, fame' ; slave `rumour,
reputation, fame'
Indo-European reconstruction: k^le:uH-
Certainty: +
Page in Pokorny: 605
Other cognates: Skt. sravas- `fame, honour' [n]; Gk. kleos `fame'
[n]; OIr. clu `fame' [??]
"
A PIE *k^low- will give in Lithuanian *klau- (see klausyti) not love
due to the depalatisation rule (see Kortlandt's Rule regarding
depalatisation)
So for sure the PIE was k^le:uH-. and not *k^low-
Best Regards,
Marius
P.S. But I agree that, that the intermediary Balto-Slavic form s'lo:u
proposed by Derksen could be discussed...