From: stlatos
Message: 62132
Date: 2008-12-18
> For example, on the 26th and 30th:related
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> > On 2007-05-26 11:46, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> > > Another Slavic Germanic word is:
> > >
> > > *kwors-to > Proto-Slavic *kwarsta > OCS *xvrastU 'osier', Russian
> > > xvorost 'brushwood'
> >
> > > *kwors-to > Proto-Germanic *kwarsta > OE *hyrst 'bush'
> >
> > There's no Germanic *xwarsta- (I suppose this is what you mean). There
> > are only reflexes of *xarsta- 'wickerwork, grid' and *xursti- 'wood,
> > shrubbery' (OE hyrst derives from the latter). They are probably
> > to each other, in which case they should both be assigned to the root*kWres- (as
> > *kert- 'turn, weave', and analysed as *kort-to- and *kr.t-ti-. As an
> > alternative, *xursti- (but not *xarsta-) could be related to
> > in Celt. *kWristo- 'wood'), but even so it's relationship with SlavicActually, I found this from just one day later:
> > *xvorstU is difficult to maintain.
> statement above (and offered no evidence that kwa > xwa > xa couldn't
> occur in Germanic, which I think you now believe) so it seems you
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-05-27 22:22, Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> > But almost all your examples of kW>P also have
> > another unambiguous outcome of the same root without
> > kW>P. Why should this *LoikWeye+ > *laibiji+ be any
> > different? Since there's often both a thematic and
> > causative from the same root, where is *LoikWeye+ > X
> > laigWiji+ and why has its meaning been taken by a form
> > of *leip+?
> >
> > It seems the same argument could have been applied
> > to -lif if it happened not to have a Baltic cognate.
>
> I basically agree. To tell the truth, I prefer the *leikW- analysis of
> 'leave' myself.
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/10217
>
> > But *gWhe/ormo+ > warm seems certain, especially
> > since *gWh>gW>w in other positions, also.
>
> One funny thing about PGmc. labiovelars is that they tend to lose their
> labiality next to root-internal apophonic *o, as in *gWolbHo- >
*kalBa-,
> *dHogWHo- > *ðaGa- or *kWol(h1)so- > *xalsa-. That doesn't seem to work
> with *warma-, so perhaps it reflects *gWHermo- (as in Gk., Arm. and
> Alb.) with a coloured vowel. Unfortunately, there are too few secure
> examples to see what really happened to initial *gWH and velar + *w
> combinations in Germanic. I like derivations like *g^Hwer- >
*Ber-an- on
> some days but hate them on others.
>
> > *pn,kWttis > *funxWstiz > fist
>
> A well-taken point. Of course it's still possible that xW was
> delabialised after *u even if a nasal intervened, especially as nasals
> were vocalised very early in this position.
so I don't see why you said "*xursti- (but not *xarsta-) could be
related to *kWres-". Again, I'm not objecting to your conclusions (I
don't think *kWorsto- > *xwarsta- or *xarsta- existed, either) but to
your methods of determining which theory is correct (or what "tone"
should be taken).
You've indicated my continued objections indicate a desire to
"convert" my opponents, but how is this different from what you've
done with, say, Alexandru above? Notice that you didn't have any
evidence for your point of view above, and I've always attempted to
provide as much as possible.