From: tgpedersen
Message: 59535
Date: 2008-07-11
>I hadn't read Buck's §143 closely enough; it seems the rules in
> --- 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"Kuhn's usual explanation is that some words were only partially
> > 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.I want you consider what you are saying here, since it is pretty
> > No more need to put a foot in it (although *pe:(i) etc mightThat's a timing issue. Or: Been there, done that. Ultimately, I think
> > 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.