--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
>
>
> > But what other examples are there for IE, or Germanic specifically?
>
> For PIE, e.g. *weik^-s and *weik^-tlo- (hence Lat. vi:lla), both
> meaning 'dwelling-place, homestead'.
I really would prefer a word for a tool, item, etc. I know that is
not all that is formed by -tlo- (one of the reasons I separate its
origin from -tro-) but that is the problem I'm investigating now.
Your argument about two meanings being able to be given to "cutter"
doesn't apply so well to an intransitive verb. There's also no ev.
for -tlo- here anywhere besides Latin, which may have just been
analogical (that is, not considering the PIE meaning at all, even if
it would have been suitable) after *bhuuxtlo+ or some similar word
designating a place. Or even later ana. with *-tlo- for the house
itself as a crafted thing, *woikYos for the place. I can't be sure of
any of this, since these meanings can mix easily, etc., but it's just
because of my uncertainty I'd like to see a more easily analyzable
example.
And there are specific problems with this word being considered a
root-noun. IE languages show reflexes of *domxos 'house' but *dems-
in the old compound. There's no reason to assume anything different
for *woikYos and *weikY-/wiikY- (with the very common 'master'
compound perhaps allowing replacement of *woikYos a few times).
> > I've already given a few examples that show this is not a complete
> > explanation (at least). In fact the cognates I gave show rtl almost
> > directly as ferculum, or kartari:- with a change sim. to Greek
> > *karttlos > kártallos.
>
> <ferculum> need not be old. The unsyncopated form <fericulum> also
> exists.
I admit that nothing about ferculum shows how old it is, by itself.
By the same token, nothing about fericulum shows it isn't, since the
presence of vehiculum doesn't say anything proving ve:lum is young.
> Compare new <vehiculum> vs. older <ve:lum>
Oh, I've already compared it, and even asked why there was no
*vehula or *vegula if that was the ana. replacement, and where
-(i)culum came from if -ulum by itself was already a satisfactory
solution. That is, if forms like *wekslom, *sepelklom, and *pa:flom
had -lom analyzed out as the ending (with the many variations becoming
too complex to be seen as regular from the stem at the time), why did
that not last and -culum return as a whole ending?