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

At 5:03:03 AM on Friday, April 18, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "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.

> In the indefinite inflection, the Danish adjective has -t
> in the neut. sg. (there are no cases), and the ON
> adjective has -t in neut. nom.acc. sg., whether you think
> so or not.

I expect that Sean was doubting that the <-t> of <salt> is
the neuter NA singular ending, not that the latter is <-t>.
And as Jouppe and I have already pointed out, the doubt is
clearly justified, since all forms of the adjective have the
<t> (e.g., indef. sing. nom. masc. <saltr>, fem. <sölt>).

Brian