From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 59009
Date: 2008-06-03
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"They're the same root.
> <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'?