Re: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we discussing?

----- Original Message -----
From: "stlatos" <stlatos@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:56 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we discussing?


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "jouppe" <jouppe@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2008-04-15 22:53, stlatos wrote:
> > >
> > > > What about comparison with Germanic? What do you believe gave
> hund
> > > > and mund?
> >
> > I do not believe these come form participles. Even if they did,
> > what are the chances that such would only be retained in one branch
> > and in two words of nearly the same phon. form?
> >
> - - - - - - - -
> How do you then derive Gmc. *sal-t- from IE *sh2el-?

I've seen no ev. the same rules apply to liquids. It's more likely
that there's contamination with the adj. 'salty' with d>t, as part of
similar changes in IE branches specifically for this word.



***

Patrick:

Have you considered the rare stem extension in -*d that Brugmann identified?


***