Re[2]: [tied] Re: An example

At 7:28:44 PM on Monday, February 13, 2006, Patrick Ryan
wrote:

> From: Richard Wordingham
> <mailto:richard@...>

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

>>> From: Miguel Carrasquer<mailto:mcv<mailto:mcv>@...>

>>>> The root is *h2melg^- (Grk. amelgo:, Ir. bligim, Lith.
>>>> melz^u, CS/OR mUlzu, Lat. mulgeo). Slavic shouldn't
>>>> have k (it has because *melko is a borrowing from
>>>> Germanic). I see no reason to connect *h2melg^- with
>>>> *glakt-.

>>> But I ... see no reason to reconstruct *h2melg^- for
>>> *me[:]lg^-.

>> Greek _amelgo:_.

> I do not see Greek _amelgo:_ as a reason for
> reconstructing *H2me[:]lg^-.

> Strictly a Greek phenomenon.

According to the summary in Beekes, Greek, Albanian, and
Hittite are the only places that one might normally see a
trace of *h2 from *h2melg^-. If there's a Hittite cognate,
I haven't run across it. Albanian <mjel> has been
considered a cognate (Pokorny, Demiraj), but Michiel de Vaan
points out that the absence of any reflex of *g^ is
problematic. (He and Alexander Lubotsky are currently
revising the database based on Demiraj.) Thus, it would
seem that too much evidentiary weight shouldn't be placed on
this word. Under the circumstances, Gk. <amélgo:> pretty
clearly tips the scales towards *h2melg^-.

Brian