Re: Sin once more

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

>
> Pokorny: '
> pe:(i)-, pi:- "weh tun, beschädigen, schmähen";
> pe:-mn. "Leid, Krankheit".
> Ai. pí:yati "schmäht, höhnt",
> pi:yú-, píya:ru- "höhnend, schmähend";
> gr. pe:~ma "Verderben, Leid",
> apé:mo:n "unbeschädigt; unschädlich",
> pe:-maíno: "stifte Unheil, richte zugrunde" (idg. *pe:-mn.),
> pé:sasthai: mémpsasthai Hes.,
> e:-panía "Mangel, Entbehrung";
> pé:ros, dor. pa:rós "verstümmelt, blind",
> á-pe:ros "unverstümmelt";
> lat. paene (pe:ne) "beinahe, fast; ganz und gar"
> (ursprüngl. Neutrum eines Adj. *pe:-ni-s "beschädigt, mangelhaft"),
> paenitet "es reut, tut leid",
> pe:nu:ria "Mangel"; von einem Partiz. *p&-tó-s "geschädigt" stammt
> patior, -i:, passus sum "dulde, erdulde, leide";
> idg. pe:i- in got. faian "tadeln",
> pi:- in got. fijan, aisl. fja:, ags. fe:on, ahd. fi:e:n "hassen",
> Partiz. Präs. in got. fijands, ahd. fi:a:nt usw. "Feind";
> mit gebrochener Reduplikation
> ai. pa:pá- "schlimm, böse";
> pa:pmán- m. "Unheil, Schaden, Leiden" erst nach dem vielleicht
> lallwortartigen pa:pá- für *pa:man- eingetreten;
> ai. pa:mán- bedeutet "eine Hautkrankheit, Krätze",
> pa:maná-, pa:mará- "krätzig', wie
> av. pa:man- "Krätze, Fläche, Trockenheit", wozu vermutlich
> lat. paemino:sus, pe:mino:sus "brüchig, rissig";
> ai. pa:pá- = arm. hivand- "krank" (Ernst Lewy).
> WP. II 8 f., WH. II 234 f., 264, 283.'

Everything but the kitchen sink. Sometimes Pokorny does this.
Another example is his *pel-(1).

> How about *pe:-ik- "something that hurts", later 'de-sabellized'

(cf.

> Osc scriftas, Umbrian screhto, but Latin script-), pe:ik- > pekk-,
> thus Latin pecca: (old n.pl.)?

"De-sabellization" or the like was invoked by Alessio to explain L.
<adeps> 'soft fat' beside the expected <aleps> (which does occur, but
later). That is, <aleps> supposedly sounded like a "Sabinized" word
and was "corrected" to <adeps>. This explanation fails, since actual
Sabine, like South Picene and to a lesser extent Paleo-Umbrian,
tended to fortite -l- to -d-; with <adeps> we likely have an Old
Sabine loanword (in sacrificial contexts) into Latin. It was the
Sabino-Latin dialect which tended to lenite d- and -d- to l- and -l-.

Nor does "de-sabellization" work in your example, since no P-Italic
language makes -ik- from -kk-. Umbrian <pesetom> is generally held
to be written for *<peççetom>, as mentioned earlier. Oscan retains -
kk-; see e.g. <akkatus> nom. pl. 'advocates', <Dekkieis> gen. sg. 'of
Decius'. Thus, even if "de-sabellization" were a valid way of
producing Latin forms, it could not yield *pecca from an earlier
*peika: (and no Italic language retains inherited long diphthongs as
such).

> It would correspond to Norw. (un-Grimm) peik "böser Streich"
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/01paik-

betr_gen.html

Distinct roots *peik- and *peig-, in Gmc. *fi:h-/*fi:g- and *fi:k-,
appear to have been confounded due to synonymy between 'wicked,
hurtful, treacherous' and 'marked, branded'. Kuhn's *peik- is a good
NWB example, in my opinion.

> No more need to put a foot in it (although *pe:(i) etc might
> ultimately be from *ped- "lower(?)" v.).

We need less lumping, not more. Or at any rate we should first do as
much splitting as possible, then look for lumping opportunities.

DGK