Re: Latin tardus

> > > Never heard of that. If so, why Latin <libet>,
> > > older <lubet>, "pleases", related to OE <lufu>
> > > "love"? And if *u>i there in Germanic, then one
> > > would not find <lufu> nor <lof> "praise" nor OE
> > > <lybb> "drug" (OHG <luppi>) related to Irish <luibh>
> > > "herb".
> >
> > Depending on the time the rule occurs PIE *bh could
> > have been *f in Latin; with dissimilation of *oi>ei;
> > *eu>ei; *u>i later (if *lub>*lab fits in with *wr.()w
> > > *ar()w it's probably fairly old).
> >
>
> Hans Kuhn (again), who would like to place the pre-Romans and pre-
> Italics somewhere near his beloved Nordwestblock, points further to
> the West German river Lippe, older Lupia.
>
> Sporadic, ie sociolectal ü/u (cf the history of Dutch [ui], in the
> neighborhood), later i/u?
>

Possibly Latin liber/*luber?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/44457

Loan?

Which reminds me:
OI lo:g "wage, price", Lat lucrum "gain, advantage".
These are related classically in PIE, if we posit the existence
of 'extensions' *-b and *-k, of no particular meaning. If I declare
instead this a case of allofamy, both *leu-b- and *leu-k- would be
derived from some foreign *lau(G)- with *-b and *-k being PIE
renditions of the final of the loanword.

So, maybe I should ask again: should 'allofamy' be considered a
permissible concept in PIE?


Torsten