Re: Latin re:ne:s 'kidneys'

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

>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@>
> > wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski gpiotr@ wrote:
> >
> > Anttila's etymology requires one metathesis of a rather common
> > type (sonorants swapping places) and _no_ semantic shift
> > whatsoever, so why should it be considered inferior?
> >
> > Yes, but such metathesises are pure speculations...
> >
> > You cannot demonstrate them (either pro or con) so there is no
> > value by supposing them
> >
> > This is why I regard *sreneh2/4- 'hip' as more adequate to explain
> > the Latin word. Futhermore, Basque has errain, errein- 'kidneys'
> > (with protetic e- because Basque doesn't allow for rhotics at
> > word-initial) from a lost IE language (Italoid aka IE-Ligurian).
>
> Said Italoid aka IE-Ligurian language might then of course have

experienced the same metathesis, which means your argument doesn't fly.

>

Torsten, there's no hint that particular metathesis (we're not talking
about metathesis in general, but this one in particular) had ever
occurred. This is why *sreneh2/4- should take precedence -it doesn't
need metathesis-.

Octavià