Re: Latin merx

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:

> > I neither stated nor implied that <Vulca:nus> is etymologically
> related to <Mulciber>.
>
> Of course, you didn't, because this was my own hypothesis.

But your post strongly suggested it was. I had to reread carefully to be sure that Douglas wasn't proposing it.

> > Also, note that intervocalic *-bH- regularly becomes Latin -b-; it is
> P-Italic which shows -f-. In Latin objective compounds with <-fer>, like
> <signifer>, the -f- has been introduced from the simplex <fero:> by
> analogy of <armiger> to <gero:>, etc.

> Possibly.

Have you some other explanation?

> > The proposal that <Mulciber> is to <mulceo:> as <latebra> is to
> <lateo:>, of native Latin origin with the implemental suffix
> *-dHlo-/-dHla:-, is far more plausible than groping in the dark for
> borrowing from an unidentified language.

> I suppose you mean *-dhro-.

No reason to - see http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29858 et seq. for a discussion of the suffix -tlo/-thlo or -tlo/-dHlo and its conditionally rhotacised version. For Latin, so far as I am aware, the rhotacisation could be PIE or Latin - recall the conditioned alternant -a:ris of -a:lis.

Richard.