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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> W dniu 2010-07-14 06:42, stlatos pisze:
>
> > That is not a reasonable possibility; the odds of two words rec. *
> > austro- for dir./wind with dif. origins is too small to consider.
>
> How did you calculate these odds?

I did not calculate them, I estimated. If they're low enough, no calculation is needed, even if it were possible for historical linguistics.

> Chance similarities and spurious
> cognates are rather inconveniently common.

Not really. Many common examples used to support this really are related.

> Besides, Lat. <auster> does
> _not_ primarily indicate a cardinal point, so you should actually have
> said "the odds of a word for a wind and a similar-looking word for a
> direction with different origins are too small to consider".

That is ridiculous; both the n and s wind and related terms were used to refer to direction, North Italy, etc. Winds are commonly named from a direction, and vice versa.

> > A change in dir. needs
> > no explnation, especially when speakers of one l. have moved to a place
> > w dif. wind patterns.
>
> Contrariwise, there is a lot to explain here.

I don't think so, and I used a simple example to support my thought. They both < * austro-, both l. < PIE, and there's no other (good) expl.

> Latin has no other terms
> for winds/directions to support the idea of a 90-degree shift in
> comparison with other IE groups.

I did not say all wind names shifted clockwise, if that's what you mean. The particular shape of Italy, its southern loc. in comparison to supposed IE homelands, etc., might explain it. But even in the absense of any movement, two l. much more closely related than E/L in Salishan showed the addition of s- (or its opposite).

> Did the proto-Italici migrate from a
> place where there had been a sirocco-like wind blowing regularly from
> the direction of the rising sun?

I don't know. No such absolute correspondence is needed, or even anything similar. I mentioned one possibility like that, and said none was needed to explain a shift in direction.

> Mind you, I don't absolutely exclude
> the possibility of Lat. auster reflecting *h2aus(s)-tero- or the like,
> but I feel entitled to doubting it.

I completely reject *h2aus(s)-tero- or anything similar. I already gave my rec. and also mentioned an older one used to explain L, etc., previously.