Re: [tied] Re: On the ordering of some PIE rules

On 2007-01-29 02:37, tgpedersen wrote:

>> And if they were so intent on out-Iranianising the Iranians, why are
>> actual Germanic loans from Iranian, such as *paTa-, so boringly
>> straightforward instead of ending
>> up as *faTa- or the like?
>
> Since it is also Slavic, it is tempting to ascribe it to a late
> influence, when spirantization (I mustn't say Grimm) had run its
> demographic course.

Any reason to regard Slavic *poNtI as a loan? It can very well be a
regular reflex of *ponth2-i-, while Gmc. *paTaz makes no sense in
Germanic terms and can hardly contain anything else than the weak grade
of Iranian *panta:-/*paT-. The borrowing must have been directly from
Iranian into Germanic.

Piotr