--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:
> --- 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'.
Despite my reluctance to use an "appeal to authority" I had a
lingering feeling I'd seen these before, even if they weren't "usual".
When I looked them up in Buck's DSS I found:
16.75
2... perhaps fr. *ped(i)ca:re 'stumble' : pe:s, pedis 'foot', cf.
pedica...
15.84
4.. perh. : Av hiku- ... Otherwise, fr. *sit(i)cos : sitis
and he refers to:
A. Walde, Vergleichendes Woerterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen,
herausgegeben und bearbeitet von J. Pokorny
and
A. Ernout et A. Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue
latine, 2e ed.
for earlier discussions.
> 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
I have further evidence to support my preference:
Gk ptaío: / paío: 'stumble, misstep, make a mistake'
Not only is it likely from the root *pet- 'fall' but possibly the
same formation. To begin, consider:
ps- / spalís 'shears', sphalássein 'to cut'
from PIE *psxaLí:x psxaLík+
If the der. verb *psxaLikàx+ underwent double met. to *spxaLàkix+
then changes like:
*psxaLikàx+
*spxaLikàx+
*spxaLàkix+
*spxaLàkixox 'I cut'
*spHaLàkiHoH
*spHaLàkyo:
*spHaLàcçyo:
*spHaLàtsyo:
could have occurred. Therefore, if a derivative of *pet+ was made
after CeC > CC word-initially it could have followed the old rules or
analogically kept the *e of the verb: optionally *petiko- / *ptiko-
with der. verb *petikàx+ / *ptikàx+ fashioned as above.
In Greek, sim. to above:
*ptikàx+
*ptàxki+
*ptàxkyox
*ptàxyox
*ptàyyox
The timing would be important if original *ax+yox gave -azo:, etc.