Re: [tied] Latin du:rus

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 44247
Date: 2006-04-12

On 2006-04-12 00:12, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> I know that we have a short u against a long one however the meaning
> is almost identical (and maibe we have a laryngeal in the root to
> *duhr- ~ *dhur-

Forget it. Skt. dur- in the forms you quoted is just a sandhi
realisation of <dus-> 'ill-, mis-' = Gk. dus-, Gmc. *tuz- (Ger. zer-),
etc. No laryngeal anywhere.

> b. Regarding: "<le:x>" is a root noun from *leg^- 'collect, gather' "
> How we can explain the long e: in le:x in this case ? As I know PIE
> *leg^- has a short *e (or I skip something here?)

Levelled-out length in a root noun is hardly unusual, especially given
the possibility that the noun may be based on a "Narten variant" of the
corresponding verb (cf. re:x, re:gis from *h3reg^-).

> Viewing this, is not better to link Latin le:x to the same group as
> Latin liga:re < PIE lig^- < PIE Root *leig^- 'to tie' ?
> PIE *ei > OldLatin ei > Old Latin e: > Latin i:
> But Old Latin e: remained *e: in le:vis and became a short *e (from
> a previous long one) in Latin deus < *deiwos so at least we could
> imagine 'another more or less similar' case for le:x

The development of *ei > *e.: > e: is restricted to some special
environments that don't occur in /le:g-/. In *deiwos, the *e.: became
prevocalic after the loss of medial *w before *o, giving *de:.os > *deos
> deus. The mid-high vowel *e.: was also lowered between a liquid and a
retained *w (as in <le:vis>, or <le:vi:>, the perf. of lino:, p.p.
litus); elsewhere it went to *i:.