[tied] Re: *-tro-/*-tlo-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > - For ukthá-, there is also the possible model of *wr.thó-,
> > > > continued in Lat. verbum and OE word from underlying *wr.H1-tó-,
> > > > the ptc. of the verbal root *werH1- seen in Gk. eíro: 'speak',
> > > > rhé:to:r 'speaker'.
> > > > This is of course mere guesswork, not any kind of proof.
> > >
> > > I thought verbum, word would point to *wr.-dhó- ??
> >
> > They do, or in my theory *v(e)rdhóm, but with the theory that
> > h()t>tH was PIE it becomes a possibility.
>
> What on earth does that mean?

I mean:

I believe PIE had dh in this word.

If a person who believed in h()t>tH made a reconstruction based only
on Latin and Germanic, it could instead be derived as *wr.H1-tó- (above).

I don't believe this; I believe the other possible cognates are actual
cognates.

My specific reconstruction shows that it had either e or 0 in the
first syl., ve>vo in some env. in Baltic, etc.

> > I think someone speculated about tH>d in Balto-Slavic, too, but I
> > really don't believe it.
>
> And -dh- comes in where?

I derive the word from a from with dH; I don't believe tH>d.

If someone derives the word from a form containing tH instead of dH
then it doesn't come in anywhere (unless a specific rule has tH>dH>d
as intermediates).