PIE > sea (was: Re: sea, seal)

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

>
> It is impossible that KArtvelian zaGHwa could be from *saHwo
> Because KArtvelian consonants are stable.

I see no reason that it has to be either: 1. borrowed from PIE or
2. native. A borrowing from an IE language that turned fricatives >
+voice whenever possible works just as well (such as prehistoric
Armenian, in my opinion).

> Look at this message
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/43771
>
> I think the idea that *sajwa is borrowed from pre-i.e speakers in

Scandinavia is right.

> they had a word cognate with KArtvelian *saghwa
> and it was rendered in Germanic as *sajwa because I.E has no *z.

But why would saivo > Germanic *saiwiz? If both Scandinavia and the
Caucasus had this as a native word, why G>j and a>o in Finnish, etc?
These regions are both at the edges of IE territories and have
definite borrowings from IE languages; why not this word, too?

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: stlatos
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 11:05 PM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] PIE > sea (was: Re: sea, seal)

> Knowing such an odd *Cwy can exist, the PIE *sax+ 'fill up, satiate'
> can be used: *sax-wo+ 'filling up, full (of water)' >> *sax-wyo+s
> '(on the) full lake' (vs. dried up, etc.).
>
> In Germanic the strong stem *sax-wyos > *sax-i-wos but the weak stem
> *sax-wi+ remained. They mixed together > *sax-i-wis > *sai-wiz.

If this isn't right, why both -o and -i in the stem? Isn't Celtic
/wergiwyos/ < *wergwiyos < *ver-x-gwyos too much of a coincidence to
ignore?