Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Syntax and a bit of help

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:37 PM
Subject: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Syntax and a bit of help



<snip>

> > Yes, according to Siebs' Law, *s + *der- > *ster-.
>
> Indeed; but we don't seem to be dealing here with a root
> *ster-. Or have you some cognates from *ster- (or for that
> matter from *der-)?
>
> Brian

***
Patrick:

I understand your concern.

For simple *der- we have OHG zittaro:m; and with extensions, Lith.drebù.

The major problem here is that Pokorny's *der- represents, at least, two
earlier roots: *der-, 'run'; and *der-, 'tremble', the first representing
pPIE *der-, the second pPIE *dar-.

This may be why the majority of attestations for 'tremble' are found under
*ters-; and why the vast majority of derivations from *der- have to do with
'running'.

It is significant, I think, that an s-mobile form of *der-, 'run', is very
sketchily (if at all) attested: *ster-, 'steal' (if 'run away with').

I think it probable that the s-mobile form of *der-, with *s- preserved, is
found in *ster-, 'star', the 'twinkling one'; a narrow specialization of the
meaning 'tremble'.

As you know, *ter-, tremble' is poorly attested; and only when we have
the -*s root extension, do we see a more representative distribution as
*tres- or *ters-.

The PIE vowel collapse led to many unwanted homonyms; and root extensions
were a means of ameliorating the problem.

***

***