Re: hoopoe

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 55711
Date: 2008-03-22

Well, that is what AHD thinks but I am not so sure.

For my purposes, *teup- would work much better; and, 'tuft' can be derived
from *teup-, I think.

Patrick


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] hoopoe


> stuppa is the same root for Gaulish
> tupp-/stupp-/tsupp- "trunk" in French et al. In IA,
> it's the root for "tuft of hair", hence stupa
> Torsten's stuppa looks like the same thing as *tap,
> *tewp
>
> --- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> > Yes, Torsten, thank you.
> >
> > It may be a better cognate for D(w)b, 'hoopoe', than
> > *tap-.
> >
> > I looked but could not find anything like <stuppa>
> > in Pokorny.
> >
> > Is it there and I missed it?
> >
> > With Db (*Dwb), PIE *teup- would work much more
> > satisfactorily.
> >
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
> > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 3:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: [tied] hoopoe
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: tgpedersen
> > > > >
> > > > > =============
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister
> > <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the words for tuft of hair, pompon and
> > tutf of
> > > > tree --if they are related-- are from the word
> > for
> > > > hoopoe, which definitely has a tuft in the
> > picture.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You noticed it too? Perhaps the *dz could explain
> > the s-mobile, st-/t-
> > > alternation in stuppa/top etc:
> > >
> >
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/54315
> > >
> > > Torsten
> > >
> > > =============
> > >
> > > One conspicuous feature of s-mobile,
> > > is that it's about the only phoneme that
> > > never assimilates :
> > > s +k > s-k
> > > but
> > > s + g > s-k as well
> > >
> > > My own explanation is this :
> > >
> > > LAte PIE fused *z and *dz
> > > (after Salish split off)
> > > or maybe *z and *dz disappeared
> > > altogether.
> > > But *ts did not fuse with *s
> > > immediately.
> > > They remained in contrast.
> > >
> > > *ts could not assimilate into *dz
> > > because there was no *dz
> > > *ts was *locked-in* as unvoiced.
> > > Hence ts-g forced inverted assimilation
> > > because *dz-g was impossible
> > > (no dz in the system !)
> > > Hence ts-k which surfaces as *s-k
> > >
> > > But this is maybe too early to discuss
> > > because you haven't admitted *z and *dz yet.
> > >
> > > Arnaud
> > >
> > > ==========
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>