Re: The oddness of Gaelic words in p-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

> At 1:30:32 PM on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, stlatos wrote:
> > *sitikos 'thirsty' would come from sitis 'thirst' not from
> > 'foot' or anything similar.

> That should have been two separate comments: I accept the
> usual derivation of <siccus> from *seikW-, and I don't buy a
> derivation of <pecca:re> from an adjective 'footic'.

You are the one who said "*ped-ka:- 'sin' > pecca:re", I simply said
that it was formed from an adj./n (many verbs in -a:- are formed like
this) with -ik- not -k-. I did not introduce the root *ped and
certainly didn't say it meant 'foot'. You compared it to:

>> Weiss gives as examples
>> *ped-ka:- 'sin' > pecca:re,
>> noting Vedic <pádyate> 'falls' in connection with the
>> last.

so why would my nearly identical derivation be connected to 'foot' not
'fall'? I'd prefer *petiko-, actually, though it made no difference
in terms of the sound changes I was advocating, so I didn't think it
needed to be discussed at that time.