Re: Oedipus

----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> ============
> I read Ernout-Meillet
> This still does not explain any of your references.

Actually, I was commenting on the *kad- "fall/kill". I propose it's
from *kWatl-, borrowed from Venetic, ultimately from Semitic.

===========

Could you explain how you go from Semitic to Venetic to Latin ?

What is this Venetic ?

If you have already written this , could you paste it without drowning me
under ten references.
Thnx
Arnaud

=============


> Note that Meillet rejects the derivation from "to fall".

If my French doesn't fail me, he doesn't, he's concerned about the
ending. Note their
'papa:uer, -eris n. (et m. dans Caton et Pl.): pavot.
Ancien, usuel. Panroman, M.L.6210; passé en germ.: v. angl. popoeg
(pa- de *papa:ger?).
Dérivés: papa:uereus,-ra:tus,-a,-um; papa:uerculum (Ps.Ap.).
Forme à redoublement, d'origine incertaine; cf. peut-être pappa,
pappo:, la graine de pavot étant comestible; la finale rappelle celle
de cada:uer. On y a vu d'anciennes formes de participe parfait en
-wes. En tout cas, mot de type populaire.'
=======

I guess the vocalism a is also a problem for Meillet.
Arnaud

===========

The /w/ in -wes is related to the m/w in verbal 1pl and in the suffix
*-ment-/*went-. That, in my world is from my favorite phoneme, the
labio-velar nasal /n,W/. Thus, a ppp of *kad- would be *kadán,W-, from
which one gets both *kadán,W-r- > cada:uer and *kadán,W-i- >
calami-(tas) (BTW, note the /g/ of OE(?) popoeg,which can be explained
as < /n,W/). That means I can give up the reconstructions with -ni-
for calamitas/catamitas.

Torsten

=========

This supposes that the alternation w/m is two allophones not two phonemes.
The same kind of reasoning leads MArtinet to think the alternation -r/-n
goes back to *nt.
I'm very much sceptical about that.
More over if /ngW/ were a phoneme, it should be frequent. and this w/m
should be widespread.
We don't see anything like this.

Arnaud