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

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

>
>
> --- Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <elme@...> wrote:
>
> > Do we have a pre-BSl. rule changing th to dh after
> > sonant (or just
> > liquid)? We find Slavic tvIrdU 'hard, compact'
> > (Lith. restored
> > tvìrtas), *vold- from *wolHt- (Lith valdy'ti, OCS
> > vladoN 'dominate'),
>
> But Germanic *wald- isn't a causative

I didn't say it was. It may be an intensive.

> Why would this *wolHt- end in Ht? Is it an
> extension? If so, why not one in dh? Why no *H1r,H1t- > *H1r,th-

for

> 'row'?

I'd assume /t/ from the 3sg, but I admit I overlooked this point
which makes the example very weak. It demands no explanation that
this did not happen in most cases.

>
> It's already been speculated that Latin tardus may come

from 'firm >

> steady > slow' and tH>d is impossible after r here in any theory.

If

> Baltic can change an adj. in -dos > -tos by analogy, then the

origin

> of that *-dos doesn't matter.

I don't follow.

>
> Why would *tl,xtos > tìltas have ana. d>t?

I agree it wouldn't. Perhaps BSl. /d/ is only from H1t.

> I gave a list of PIE words reconstructed with *-dos:
>
> However, -idus is not from *-e-h1- + -to-. There are cognates in
> other languages (where there's no tH>d).
>
> I'd say stative verbs in *-èxY+ had adj. in *-(e)xYdó+ meaning
> 'being _'. So *xYruudhexYó+ > *xYruudheyó+ 'red' > rubeus, OCS
> ryz^dI; *xYruudh(e)xYdó+ 'being red, blushing' > Early Irish

ruidiud

> 'blush'
>
> Latin retained the adj. meaning but Slavic turned most into

abstract

> nouns: OCS pravIda '*being straight > right'; Sb-Cr govedo '*cattle
> adj. > head of cattle' (or maybe 'being alive > living being').

I remain impressed by Vaillant who considers -Ida a Germanic
borrowing. For goveNdo I have suggested my own derivation: *gWow-m.d-
o- 'possession of oxen' (root of Welsh meddaf 'possess'). Nowhere
near certain. I know.

> Nouns of being had tones mid-mid > (e)-(e); their adjectives with
> tones mid-mid-high > (e)-(e)-ó so *xYre_udhe_xYdó+ >

*xYru_udh_xY,dó+

> optionally.
>
> The sounds uu>u: and ii>i: in Baltic, Slavic; but uu>u+tone in

most

> others.

You've lost me.

>
> For (things of a) color/brightness:
>
> *leukY-xY-dó+ '(thing) being bright' >
> lu:cidus 'bright', OE li:getu 'lightning'
>
> *xalbh-xY-dó+ 'being white' >
> Lat albidus 'white', PGer *albitaz > ON elptr, OHG albiz 'swan'

This looks like a fine and unexpected example of *th > Germanic /t/
as assumed by Stang and Dal. The common derivation would indeed be
*H2albhe-H1-to- > *H2albhetho-.

> *xYruudh-xY-dó+ 'being red, blushing' >
> Early Irish ruidiud 'blush'

This can be *-tu-.

> gYhel-xW+xYdó+ >
> gYhel-xY-dxWó+ >
> gYhel-xY-dwó+ 'being yellow > being bright (white)'
> >
> khelidwó:n 'swallow', Middle Irish gelbund 'sparrow'
>
> If all this is right it seems to make the odd *gYhel-xW+xYdó+ >
> khelidwó:n more likely (both words for birds based on color words

in

> *-xYdó+).

Mighty interesting comparison.

> > and *wVrtho- > Lit. vardas, OPr.
> > wirda-;
>
> What would cause the different vowels?

I don't know, but all theories will have to live with that problem.
One possibility is accent shift half-way through the process of
producing zero-grade: *werH1-tó- > *worH1-tó- > *wrH1tó- > *wr.thó-
; at the stage *worH1-, the o-vowel spread to the collective which
was stressed on the initial.

Jens