From: Rick McCallister
Message: 49869
Date: 2007-09-09
> On 2007-09-09 08:08, stlatos wrote:____________________________________________________________________________________
>
> > *drusdo+ > *druzdo+ / *druzgo+ > (various)
> 'thrush'
>
> I've often wondered about this one myself. The
> problem with this word is
> its extreme variability, which makes even the
> reconstruction of the PIE
> prototype somewhat doubtful. *dru-sd-o- is my own
> proposal, so I'm not
> going to argue against it, but no matter if the
> original shape was that,
> or *trozdo-, or indeed anything, the various
> reflexes cannot be
> explained without allowing rather liberally for
> distant assimilations,
> dissimilations, folk-etymological distortions and
> other special effects.
> Even *drusgo- has to be further manipulated to give
> OE þrysce.
>
> > *doru 'wood, tree'
> > *drustxo+ 'standing _ = tree' > Alb drushk 'oak'
> >
> > *xYrurdhto+ > OE ru:st; Alb ndryshk
> >
> > *xYrurdhto+ > L ruscum 'butcher's broom (plant w
> red berries) >>
> > rusco: / rusto:
> >
> > *pr,xWisto+ 'first' > L pri:sti:nus, pri:scus
> >
> > *proxW stx,to+ 'set (straight) forward' > OCS
> prostU;
>
> I'd analyse this one as *pr[h3]o-sth2-o-, with the
> *h3 lost in
> composition so early that *pro- counts as PIE.
>
> > Khow frosk
> > 'straight'
> >
> > *lals+ > Skt las.-
> > *lalsti:vus > L lasci:vus
>
> Don't you feel Slavic *lasU 'covetous' and *laska
> 'grace, love' should
> belong here? In Skt. las.ati, where reduplication
> might be expected, I
> have little objection to *lV-ls-, but why in Latin?
> The root seems to be
> *la(:)s-, perhaps *lah2s- (esp. if Schrijver is
> right about the
> development of *R.hC- > Lat. RaC- in absolute
> anlaut). Gmc. *lustu-,
> *lusti- looks aberrant, but the initial zero-grade
> of *(C)RVC- roots
> (expected *(C)uRC-) may be "corrected" to *(C)RuC-
> in Germanic. So you
> could have the abstract noun *l.h2s-tu/i- vs. adj.
> *l.h2s-k(^)o-
> (underlying Lat. lasci:vus).
>
> > *xWostn.+ 'a bone' > Arm. oskr
>
> Compare with this the velar extension of Skt.
> asrg/k, gen. asnás 'blood'
> (h1esh2-r/n-) and forms like Gk. óstrakon <
> *h2ost-r.-k-o- and Welsh
> asgwrn. My gut feeling is that the velar originally
> followed the
> heteroclitic *-r/n- and was metathesised in Armenian
> and Brittonic
> *h2óst-r.k > *h2ós(t)-kr. . But the relevant forms
> are so few that any
> conclusions drawn from them are doomed to be
> tentative. If Lat.
> sanguen/sanguis reflects *h1sh2an-gW-, that casts
> doubt on the
> assumption of one and the same velar increment in
> 'blood' and 'bone'.
> I've no idea how to analyse them. *h2óstr.k might
> represent *h2óstr.t
> Cf. yakr.t) with place dissimilation (and if so, we
> might have
> *h2oskr.(t) as a result of the same dissimilation
> working in regressive
> mode). The extended form of the 'blood' word looks
> complex enough to
> reflect an obscured compound mixed up with the
> normal paradigm of its
> first member (something like Iuppiter : Iovis).
>
> > These words and others are part of something I
> believe was
> > widespread and involved in early IE separation;
> I've mentioned some
> > before and can gather the parts together if
> needed, but I'd like to
> > know if you have a different explanation.
>
> The situation is complicated by the fact that there
> are many derivatives
> in *-k^o-, *-(i)sk(^)o-, *-(i)ko-, *-h3kW-o-,
> *-gW[h2]-o-, which may be
> added to the same bases that form derivatives in
> *-to/u/i-, *-isto-,
> *-st[h2]-o- and the like, so a fortuitous
> correlation can be mistaken
> for a phonological correspondence. What would you
> make of
> *h2ju-h3n.-táh2 'youth' (Lat. iuventa, Goth. junda)
> vs. *h2ju-h3n-k^ó-
> (Skt, yuvas'á-, Gms. junGa-)? If this alternation
> is morphological
> rather than phonological, why should not the same be
> true of Goth.
> lustus : lat. lasci:vus?
>
> Piotr
>
>
>
>