Re: Res: Res: [tied] Re: 'dyeus'

W dniu 2010-07-13 00:22, stlatos pisze:

> So 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-?

I personally favour a phonological explanation of the origin of *-n/r-
heteroclisy in PIE (maybe even involving *-nt-), though it's difficult
to _prove_ anything using only internal reconstruction. It's my opinion,
for what it's worth, nothing more.

> > > 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.
>
> How does any of that show sr>str over sr / str or anything similar?

Slavic by itself can't distinguish between inherited *-str- and *-str-
from *-sr-, but Lithuanian evidence favours *-sr-, and Greek and
Indo-Iranian support it further.

> 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?

Perhaps double -ss- was preserved in pre-Latin and did not undergo
rhotacism, then *-s(s)r- yielded -str- as in a few other branches. But
there's also another possibility: that Lat. auster, which means neither
'east(ern)' or 'dawn', is not connected with <auro:ra>.

Piotr