W dniu 2010-07-14 00:22, Tavi pisze:
> I think Latin <*Auster*> 'South wind', Lithuanian <*aus^trìnis
> (vêjas)*> 'NE wind', Latvian* <àustrums> *'East', Germanic
> **austra-n* 'East', Slavic **u:strj-* 'summer' are all loanwords from
> Italoid **aust-r-*, a reflex of IE **Xaidh-* 'to burn; fire'. I
> suppose Italoid had **-dh* > *-st *as in native Latin <*aesta:s,
> aestus*> but with a different vocalism.
In Latin, both *-sr- and *-dHr- would have given /-br-/, and in view of
what we know about Italic phonology there is no earthly reason why *dH
should have developed into /st/ in that branch or any language
genetically close to it. Indeed, we get -d- in <aede:s> 'hearth'. The
morphological cluster *-dH-t- gives both /-ss-/ and /-st-/ in Latin
(iussus vs. aestus), and there are too few examples to be sure which of
these developments is "regular".
Of course <auster> may contain the suffix of contrast, PIE *-tero-, but
"a different vocalism" is not something to be treated lightly. _WHY_
auster and not *aester? Are we back to etymology as "une science où les
voyelles ne font rien et les consonnes fort peu de chose"?
Piotr