From: stlatos
Message: 66308
Date: 2010-07-12
>I didn't say it was unextended, I said it ended in *-wo:s.
> W dniu 2010-07-12 07:18, stlatos pisze:
>
> > What reason do you have for deriving this from 'eastern' instead of
> > 'morning', since, as you said/implied, "morning star" is so common a
> > term? If so, the -r- is from -s.- not -s.r.-.
>
> That's the usual explanation, but as Germanic has no unextended reflexes
> of the 'dawn' root,
>deriving both *austra- and *aura- (rather than
> *auza-) from *ausra- is more economic, since there is independentSo is it more economic to derive words with -no- / -ro- from *-n.o- in PIE, since there are so many that alternate in IE? Or does this sort of logic only apply to -no- / -mo-?
> evidence for the loss of *z in *zr.
> Anyway, *h2ausro- means 'morning' inHow does any of that show sr>str over sr / str or anything similar? What about L auster? Wasn't an old rec. * aus-tero- made to account for all these? Wouldn't your possible * aussro- leave open opt. s>t/s_r or sim., at least?
> other branches, so I don't have to insist on 'east-wanderer'. It can be
> 'morning-wanderer' just as well.
> > The -t- in 'eastern' may not come from -s.r.- at all since it is a
> > derivative of 'morning', a word ending in -wó:s with f/t* (dental) alt.
> > (which words I believe you said probably came from T > s/t in PIE, with
> > no f, etc., mentioned). The -t- is also found in some l. in which there
> > is reason to think no sr>str took place, like Sl * utro.
>
> There are very good reasons to think Slavic <(j)utro> comes from
> *h2ausro- as well. First, Baltic has it (Lith. aus^ra, Latv. austra);
> secondly, Slavic has many traces of the by-form *(j)ustro.