--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > Why do both Greek and Germanic show both ll and l?
>
> *bH&lVn-/*bHl.n- > *Bulan-/*Bull- > *Bulan- (OE, ON) ~ *Bullan- (MHG).
> Both in Germanic and Greek *-ln- > -ll-, so little wonder that -ll-
> crops up in both. Where a different pattern of vocalisation prevents
> *-l.n- from assimilation, you can see both consonats, as in Geg blini.
It seems to me that you first indicated that *bhl,no+ > *bulla+ and
then it could become a weak noun in Gmc.; did I misinterpret this or
have you changed your mind?
Changing theories is fine, of course, but you've done so in the past
without telling anyone (on the list) and seemed to expect me to know.
For example, I was arguing that Ktl > Ksl in various IE languages; in
your last post on the subject you argued against such (saying veslo <
*wes^tlo+, -dlo- MUST come from *-dhlo-, etc., and similar things you
now have rejected) but then you said you had had already accepted Ksl
so I needn't have kept making an argument in favor of this (a search
here showed nothing from you accepting Ksl).
You even told me to look for your ordering of -gWn- > -wn- in the
archives, but the most recent posts on the subject I quoted were
immediately rejected in favor of a newer order of yours.
I can't continuing trying to make detailed arguments if I'm not sure
what you believe. During my recent argument against aspects of Olsen
and her husband's theories you provided evidence and arguments in
favor of them that were different from firsthand argument for a
different required order. Do you still favor your interpretation, or
the (modification?) of their original theories presented more recently?
> > Your explanation requires n in all the words, but there are clearly
> > two different sets, one ending in -on- and used for an animal. Are
> > you saying those with -ln- are derived from this? It's almost
> > certainly the other way around ('swollen' >> 'a swollen animal').
>
> I've been trying to propose a common base precisely for those that
refer
> to big/fat animals. Of course the semantic development is as above. I
> don't suggest it's otherwise, or deny the fact that the root *bHel- has
> other derivatives not involving a nasal suffix.
But do you still say phallos < *bhl,no+ << *bh()lon+ ( << *bh()lo+
or dir. << stem)? What about phalos? Why both ll and l?