--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> > 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. Compare new <vehiculum> vs. older <ve:lum>
I do not believe the PIE forms ending in *-tlo- and *-tro- have the
same origin. There are many reasons for this, but first consider:
*staxtlos stx,tl(e)+ > OPr stakle 'support'; G sté:le: 'block'
*tlaxtlos > *taxtlos tx,tl(e)+ > L tabula; G te:lía 'board'
*xwexYtlos > G áethlon 'prize of a contest'
*bhuuxtlos > Slavic *bu:dlod > Czech bydlo 'dwelling', etc.
then compare them to:
*mexY-trom mxY,-tr(e)+ > Skt má:tra:-, G métron 'measure'
*xYer-xY-trom xYr,xY-tr(e)+ > Skt arítra- 'oar'; Lith irklas
*xar-xW-trom > G árotron; L ara:trum 'plow'
*ter-xY-trom > G téretron; L terebra 'auger'
PIE *gWer-xW-trom 'throat' > Lith gerkle:;
Grk *bérathrom > bérethron / bárathron 'pit'
*kWen.-x-tro+ > Skt khanítra- 'spade'
*pew-x-tro+ > Skt pavítra- 'filter, etc.'
From this it seems that root of CVX are the same in both, but CCVX
appear as CCVX-tlo- but CVC-X-tro- and PwVx as Pux-tlo- but PVw-x-tro-.
Therefore, no *tel-x-tlo+ even though *tel-x-mon.+ existed, no
*bhew-x-tlo+ even though *bhew-x-to+, etc. This could most easily be
from an older difference in syllabification as C-tr but Ct-l never
C-tl. Of course, other ev. shows me that PIE was a tonal language
with multiple high, mid, low assigned for various meanings, but the
exact reason doesn't matter here.
This doesn't seem to indicate they were once the same, but instead
that they were always different and with different accent patterns.
The origin of *-tro seems to be from:
*xYer-xY-tor+ > Skt aritár- 'rower'
*pew-x-tor+ > Skt pavitár- 'purifier'
*mexY-tor+ > Skt má:tar- 'measurer'
That is, from the 'doer = person' form. An adjective in -o- was
made from these nouns indicating 'as a rower, rowing, object that rows
/ for rowing' or something similar. Therefore, the adj. has the same
form and peculiarities as the noun, with *o at the end (and loss off
unstressed tVr>tr). The meaning of the adj. arítra- 'propelling' in
addition to the noun, etc., is additional evidence.
Many transitive verbs end in -r, so the common, but not exclusive,
favoring of r-tro- could come from the fact that there were many
transitive 'doer' nouns that formed adjectives.
Moreover, a close association between '_er' and '(object for) _ing'
is seen in Sanskrit because:
*xYer-xY-tor+ > Skt aritár- shows no i>i: since the accent follows i;
but arítra- should be *arí:tra- which indicates analogy.