Re: [tied] Latin mu:stela (what do you think?)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "glen gordon" <glengordon01@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 7:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Latin mu:stela (what do you think?)
>
>
> >
> > Joao:
> > > Proto-IE *mu:s-tel
> > > Osset mystula¨g "weasel"
> > > Slavic mi:stlI, mi:stlU (this i: is a barred long
> > > "i", perhaps means y)
> > > Latin mu:ste:la
> >
> > What is this supposed to be? First of all, that
> > stem looks wrong. It looks more like a thematic
> > stem *muhstelo- at first glance. Second of all, it
> > would strongly appear that if this stem even exists
> > that it is based on *muhs- "mouse". Connecting it to
> > other outside language groups is then a complete waste
> > of time because the relatively late coinage of
> > the word is immediately clear.
> >
> > And I thought that this long-range lunacy is offtopic
> > here. There is the Nostratic forum for that.
> >
> >
> > = gLeN
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> "long-range lunacy"? Another puerile jab! Will it never end?
>
> No Nostratic form was cited or needed for the discussion. The remark

is not

> only offensive but, as usual, Glen has misunderstood everything.
>
> PIE *mu:s-tel- is perfectly within established PIE word-formation

processes.

>
> The more interesting question is what significance *mu:s- had as a

verbal

> concept.
>
> Possibly, 'bad smell'??
>
> ***

Why would the word meaning "mouse" be associated with "bad smell"?
Mice are by nature clean with their bodies, and their dung tends not
to smell bad. However, what bewilders me is why the Latin form is used
as the PIE root when there are other forms of the word in other
branches. Why would Latin be the one language to keep the word in its
original form? Plus, regarding roots - *Mu:(h)s, yes, but *-tel- ?
What does that mean?