Re: Scientist's etymology vs. scientific etymology

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> On 2008-06-09 11:07, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > I know, Jens reinstated schwa secundum in an
> intersting article,
>
> See also Vine (1999, in UCLA IE Studies, Vol. 1) on
> "einzelsprachlich
> responses to inherited zero grades".
>
> > but once you get quatio: separated from the rest
> of Latin with a
> > respectable family elsewhere, which is new, it is
> very tempting to
> > join quattuor, tri-quetrus etc to that family.
>
> LIV explains <quatio:> etc. as a neo-weak grade of a
> root reconstructed
> as *(s)kweh1t- (root aorist *kwe:t-, cf. Gk. pe: -->
> present *kwat-je/o-
> like <facio> from *dHeh1-). Such structures,
> however, are notoriously
> difficult to analyse. Cf. LIV *kwath2- 'bubble,
> ferment' -- shouldn't it
> really be *kwah2t- ~ *kwatH- (via Olsen's
> preaspiration)? This would at
> least account for the Slavic alternation
> *kvas-/*kys-, not to mention
> the *a in the root.
>
> > But I was wondering if that schwa secundum could
> also somehow explain
> > that weird wa/u 'ablaut' in Latin?
>
> I suppose it could, but which particular words do
> you mean?
>
> > BTW I can't find a decent Latin exact source word
> for Da., Sw.
> > kvadersten "square roughly cut stone, esp in
> medieval buildings".
>
> Why not simply <quadrum> 'square'? Cf. the etymology
> of <quarry>.
>
> Piotr
>

Suppose that Sean Stlatos Whalen is correct in
surmising that kwetwores is actually kwe twores. Is
there any meaning for twores?