[tied] Re: morsha

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2007-09-09 08:08, stlatos wrote:

> > *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.

*proxW ti 'forward'

*pr,xW en ti 'in front'
*pr,xW on ti
*prxW on ti
*prH on ti
*pHr on ti
fronti+ 'forehead, etc.'

*xnr,+xWokW+ '(looking) like a leader/man'
*xnr,xWokW+
*xnrxWokW+
*xnrHokW+
*xnHrokW+
*xndHrokW+
anthro:p-, dro:p-

Gmc. doesn't have this rule, so comparison in other words shows
oddities that can be explained like this.

> > Khow frosk
> > 'straight'

Why sk here, then?

> > *lals+ > Skt las.-
> > *lalsti:vus > L lasci:vus
>
> Don't you feel Slavic *lasU 'covetous' and *laska 'grace, love' should
> belong here?

Yes. The basic idea is retroflection; Rst > Rs.t. > Rs.k and opt.
for RVst in several IE languages.

Is it really that likely that trosku- comes from PIE *-ku- instead
of *-tu- or *-nu- found elsewhere?

*t(e)rsnu+
*tr,snu+
*tr,s.n.u+
*tr,s.t.u+
*tars.t.u+
*tars.ku+
*tra:s.ku+

The C>aC/Ca by retro. also in *pl,txus > platus. Baltic changes n>t
first, but the opposite in Latin and Celtic:

*t(e)rstu+ ... *t(e)rsno+
*terstu+ ..... *tr,sno+
*ters.t.u+ ... *tr,s.n.o+
*ters.ku+ .... *tr,s.n.o+
*ters.ku+ .... *tr,s.t.o+

*ters.ku+ > L tesqua 'waste'; *tr,s.t.o+ > OIr tart 'thirst'

The long V in trosku- doesn't come from H but met., so when L-L>0
the empty slot is also filled by the V:

*LaLs+ ... *LaLsto+
*LaLs.+ .. *LaLs.t.o+
*LaLs.+ .. *LaLs.ko+
*La_s.+ .. *La_s.ko+
*La:s.+ .. *La:s.ko+


There are many cases of opt. e>a by supposed *l; I'm sure this is
velar L acting like k, etc. The Ce- as Le- > La-. The velar causes
s>s. as well as r; in those that keep l/r separate regular l doesn't
seem to cause it.

In Arm. aL>oL; in Gk. aL>oL by original L (so *paL-x-wo+ > L pall-;
Gk polios; *maL-x-Lo+/ko+ > L malva; Gk *moLako+ > malakhe: /
molokhe:, etc., with dim. -akho- as in others like monakhos with stem
ending in a) unless in *xaL.

> In Skt. las.ati, where reduplication might be expected, I
> have little objection to *lV-ls-, but why in Latin?

Why -ci:vus not -ti:vus? It's very common and R>0 in that env.
(RsC) even if no dissim.

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.

Gmc. C,>uC/Cu in various env., I see no need for correction rather
than variation at the time (as Gk): innuma, drunjus. So n,>nu after
n before n,>u before N; no later correction would be possible for innuma.

So you

> could have the abstract noun *l.h2s-tu/i- vs. adj. *l.h2s-k(^)o-
> (underlying Lat. lasci:vus).

Affixes containing k in various words are fine, but why in exactly
the same places those with t are expected and/or found in others ONLY
for words with Lst/k rst/k?

> 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?

The PIE word seems likely to be a dim. in *-ko-. Skt also has a
derivative in *-ko+yo- > *-kyo- with development of Ky after a C like
*tuksyo+ / *tuskyo+ > *tuskY(y)o+ > tucch(y)a-; Av *tus^(y)a- (not
*xs^) as in caus. verb taos^aya-.