--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 2:11:40 PM on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, stlatos wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> >> 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?
>
> Because you presented it as an adjectival derivative in
> *-iko- of a noun,
No, I said:
I'd say that an original noun/adj. formed that verb. If so,
*pediko- was the original form, like *sitikos 'thirsty' > siccus
'dry', with (perhaps not regular) middle V>0 between two consonants.
If it was regular, the type of C would have counted.
Therefore *pediko- was a noun/adj. I couldn't tell if it meant
'sin' or 'sinful', and it could have been both, but I said nothing
about its origin, whether formed from noun or verb. I didn't feel it
mattered where it came from and since you already brought up the root
*ped- I didn't think any further description was necessary.
> and I understand *ped- to be 'foot'
> nominally and 'stumble, fall, walk' verbally.
If you believe this you had no reason to think I had changed the
meaning from 'fall' to 'foot'; I said absolutely nothing about the
meaning.
Since you quoted 'fall' for *ped- and I had a derivative of *ped-
with no other meaning given, why would you act as if I had given an
odd meaning like 'footic' to it and use this imaginary meaning as an
argument against my derivation?
> By the way, Watkins derives Latin <pedica> 'fetter, snare'
> from *ped-ika:, which suggests that your alternative
> derivation of <pecca:re> wouldn't work anyway.
As I said, the change might not have been regular, and later
derivations wouldn't have to show the irregularities of the older ones
anyway.