Re: Scientist's etymology vs. scientific etymology

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
>
> > > I'm more partial to an explanation including:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, mkapovic@ wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lat. far and faba are not very conviencing in proving an IE *a
> > since in
> > > > Latin a/o difference is not very stabile after labials, that is
> > *o tends
> > > > to change to /a/ (mare, ca:seus, canis, parie:s, margo: etc.), cf.
> > > > Schrijver 1991.
> > > >
> > > > Mate
> >
> > Latin <mare> and <lacus> go together in having /a/ where Celtic has
> > reflexes of /o/. Both these geomorphic terms were most likely
> > borrowed from a pre-Italic IE language which changed inherited /o/
> > to /a/. Latin <canis> can only be shoehorned into the model of Greek
> > <kúo:n> etc. with a whole slew of ad-hoc assumptions;
>
> Nothing here is ad hoc; they apply to many words with o>a, not

just one.

>

I agree with Mr. Kilday on this one: there are enough Latin words that
preserved original *o after labials that suggest to me that this law
is not true -- cf. <monile> "necklace", <mons> "mountain", <mox>
"soon", <pons> "bridge", <potis> "able", <post> "after", <podager>
"suffering from sore feet", <fodere> "to dig", and perhaps <fons>
"spring".

Andrew