Re: The oddness of Gaelic words in p-

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

> At 1:47:12 PM on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, stlatos wrote:

> > 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'?

> They're the same root.

Then why would you say the word I gave meant 'footic' not 'falling,
fallen (into sin)' as if it was unconnected to the meaning?

I'd say that pad- 'fall' probably is just contamination between
*pet- and *pod>pad- 'foot' (mixing as trip, etc.) anyway.