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

--- Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <elme@...> wrote:

> --- 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),
> > 'row'?

> > 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.

You assume that if *-dos > *-tas in Baltic then the original must
have ended in *-tos that is being restored. However, if *-dos is
original there would be no way for speakers to know what the past
situation was at the time of analogy. Therefore, the change d>t
doesn't prove t>d previously.

> > 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.

Just restating some of my own theories, in case you didn't see them
before. I'd say uu has the same tone as eu, but u: the tone as e:.

> > 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-.

Then why did you say *wrexYto+ > word not *wort?

> > *xYruudh-xY-dó+ 'being red, blushing' >
> > Early Irish ruidiud 'blush'
>
> This can be *-tu-.

Yes, it could. However, the other color-words I've given all show
*d; this was mainly a way of showing the original distinction in
meaning, not giving a certain case of *d (Greek should take care of
that, even if you think Germanic wouldn't).

> > 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.

Well, I couldn't think of any other derivation for them than the
colors, and everything else I found agrees in derivation (in regards
to roots).

> > > 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.

You mean it's a problem if there's no explanation, or if the ex.
only is postulated to account for this one word.

However, I already have an explanation that works for many Baltic
words: e>o by P or KW sporadically (often by a sonorant too, often
before o in the next syllable).

There are many words in which this can be seen by the tone, others
by comparison to IE languages that didn't have e>o.