Re: [tied] Re: morsha

On 2007-09-07 22:14, stlatos wrote:

> 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?

I haven't. What I originally wrote was not precise enough, so I laid my
views out in more detail in a following post to make it clear what came
from what in my opinion. I think Gmc. *Bulan- (obl. *Bull-, hence
secondary *Bullan-) reflects the most basic form (PIE *bH&lé:n, gen.
*bHl.n-ós) from which the others are derived.

> 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-,

Where did I say so? Certainly not in my last post on the subject. I came
round to accepting Birgit Olsen's analysis of the instrumental suffix as
*-t(H)Ro- a few years ago and haven't changed my mind since. As for
*veslo, see the link below. That's still my current opinion.

> 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).

What I have accepted all along is the "thorny" treatment of *-K(^)tl- as
originally proposed by Benedicte Nielsen, I think.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/48965

I have been familiar with this proposal for some time and didn't switch
to it in the middle of our discussion. I have mentioned it here before.

> 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?

I'm not sure which orders you mean. I certainly change my opinions from
time to time but try not to do so without warning. Sorry if I have ever
failed in this respect.

> But do you still say phallos < *bhl,no+ << *bh()lon+ ( << *bh()lo+
> or dir. << stem)?

Yes.

> What about phalos? Why both ll and l?

Both? <pHallós> 'phallus' is always written with double <l>. <pHalos>
'horn of a helmet' is a different word. Perhaps somehow cognate, but I
have no theory about their relationship, if any. There's also <pHale:s,
-e:tos> = <pHallós>, which may be a restructured variant of *bH&le:n-.

Piotr