Salt (was: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we discussing

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- stlatos <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> > <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > - - - - - - - -
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > I haven't looked up the ON, but Danih has
> > >
> > > salt "salt"
> > > salt "salty"
> > >
> > > and the -t (< PIE *-d, cf German -s) is the
> > NeutNomAcc suffix,
> >
> > I don't think so.
>
> So, what your opinion on this. Salt does seem to be
> formed from
> sal-t < *sal-d
> see Spanish sal "salt" vs. salado "salty" with a past
> participle ending
> but the Germanic past participle has a different
> origin and is not cognate to Latin -atus, etc. or we
> would have **sal-th or **sal-ath
> so the *-t has to come from somewhere

What are you asking? Just because I don't think the d in salt is
the same as in that (*tod) doesn't mean I think anything different
than what I first said: d in the noun came from d in the adj.
(sxaLdo+) which is formed with stative *do+ as in Latin adj. in -idus
(as I've discussed before with some people here).