From: stlatos
Message: 66333
Date: 2010-07-16
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:It looks to me like no more than, say, *
> >
> > W dniu 2010-07-12 06:35, stlatos pisze:
> >
> > > Is this other 'yesterday'?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> > > gYHd.es i '(at) yesterday', * gYHd.es ti '(to) yesterday', with adv. >>It's ironic that you would say this when in response to:
> > > adj. * gYHd.esin.os, * gYHd.estin.os (with, as always, opt. n. > r. and
> > > i > ï > ë > 0). The dif. in meaning is difficult to render in idiomatic
> > > English, perhaps something like: "I was hit yesterday" and "I've been
> > > hurt since yesterday".
> >
> > I'm not sure which particular cognates you have in mind.
> L hesternus, S hyastana-, possibly G khthizós if < * khthizdós < * khthistRós < * khthestir.ós / * khthesin.ós since khthesinós and serós (Elean; < * khthestRós ?) exist.
> > My solution
> > accounts for some otherwise problematic aspects of the Germanic term,
> > including the long vowel in the alleged root locative.
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> Also, less easily seen is Germanic VRtl > VRsl:
>
> gYheltlos . kaltlos . bhertlos . fkYertlos
> etc
> gYheltlos . kaltlos . bhertlos . skertlos
> gYheltos .. kaltlos . bhertlos . skertlos
> gYheltos .. kalslos . bherslos . skerslos
> gYheltos .. kalsos .. bherslos . skerslos
> etc
> gYelþaz ... xalsaz .. berslaz .. skerslaz
> gYelþaz ... xalsaz .. berlaz ... skerlaz
> gYelþaz ... xalsaz .. be:raz ... ske:raz
> gYilþaz ... xalsaz .. be:raz ... ske:raz
> gYilþaz ... xalsaz .. bæ:raz ... skæ:raz
> *bhertlos > L ferculum; *be:ro+ > bier
>
> *fkYertlos > *kartalo+ > Skt kartari:-; *ske:ro+ > ON skæ:ri; OE
> sce:ara > shears
you wrote:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/49058
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> Aren't you packing too much explanatory power into the suffix *-tlo-?
> How can an ad hoc scenario like *-ersl- > *-erl- > *-e:r- demonstrate
> the existence of a *s at any stage in Germanic? *ske:ro: and *be:ro: may
> easily reflect something else, e.g. collectives (or, better still as far
> as semantics is concerned, fossilised duals) of root nouns, with the
> length generalised from the nom.sg.
That is, when I reconstruct tools from root+tool-suffix to solve long e:, you say < e: in PIE, but when you reconstruct 'yesterday' from root+r-suffix to solve long e:, tradition says < e: in PIE.
Of course, neither group < e: in PIE. The existence of -str- / -:r- is no more ad hoc than -r- / -n- or -rt- / -rs-, since t./s. and n./r. were in free variation.
I notice you didn't say that * bhertros > * bhersros dis> * bhesros > * bheeros or anything similar, so I guess you didn't posit this change at the time. Even more ironically, you hurt your own future cause by disagreeing with me, since if I was right it would have given you more evidence for your later theory.
It doesn't matter, since all the ev. for Vsr > V:r shows changes that were opt. in early IE, and I have detected many times; these include s. > r. and V1C1C1 > V1V1C1. Even the sr / str and sr / rs doesn't matter, since opt. T.T. > T. and opt. s. > r. in any environment. This is early and unrelated to s > z since they show e() > e: > E: > æ:, while ez > e: (or e:1 vs e:2).
Of course, the opt. changes in early IE could be obl. in Gmc, but it makes little difference. If V1r.r. > V1V1r. was reg., timing allows it to be placed when V1Nn. > V1V1N and V1r.l > V1V1r. so it could be lengthening caused by loss of the second r. instead of movement of gemination.
V1r.r. > V1V1r. :
gYHd.e_s.-i-n.ó+ gYHd.e_s.t.in.ó+
gYHd.e_s.-y-n.ó+ gYHd.e_s.t.in.ó+
gYHd.ye_s.-n.ó+ gYHd.e_s.t.in.ó+
gYHd.ye_s.-n.ó+ gYHd.e_s.-n.ó+ gYHd.e_s.t.in.ó+ ana
gYHd.i-ye_s.-n.ó+ gYHd.e_s.-n.ó+ gYHd.e_s.t.in.ó+
gYHi-ye_s.-n.ó+ gYHe_s.-n.ó+ gYHe_s.t.in.ó+
gYHi-ye_s.-r.ó+ gYHe_s.-r.ó+ gYHe_s.t.ir.ó+
gYHi-ye_r.-r.ó+ gYHe_r.-r.ó+ gYHe_s.t.ir.ó+
gYHi-ye_e-r.ó+ gYHe_e-r.ó+ gYHe_s.t.ir.ó+
gYHe_s.t.ir.ó+
gYHe_s.t.ir.ó+ gYHe_s.t.ïr.ó+
gYHe_s.t.ir.ó+ gYHe_s.t.ïr.ó+ gYHe_s.t.ër.ó+
gYHe_s.t.ir.ó+ gYHe_s.t.ïr.ó+ gYHe_s.t.ër.ó+ gYHe_s.t._r.ó+
gYHe_s.t.ir.ó+ gYHe_s.t.ïr.ó+ gYHe_s.t.ër.ó+ gYHe_s.t.r.ó+
gYHe_s.t.ir.ó+ gYHe_s.t.ir.ó+ gYHe_s.t.ar.ó+ gYHe_s.t.r.ó+
we_ds.wó+ \ wu_ds.wó+ < we_dn.wó+ < +w(ó) = moving water
we_dn.wó+
we_ds.wó+
we_d.s.wó+
we_r.s.wó+
we_r.s.wó+ we_r.s.yó+ dis
we_r.s.ó+ we_r.s.yó+ dis
we_r.r.ó+
we_er.ó+
wæ:ra-
mo_r.is.t.xó+ < mo_r.í+stxó+ = standing water/marsh/swamp
mo_r.is.t.xó+
mo_r.is.t.xó+ mo_r.is.kxó+
mo_r.s.t.ixó+ mo_r.is.kxó+
mo_r.t.s.ixó+ mo_r.is.kxó+
mo_r.s.ixó+ mo_r.is.kxó+
mo_s.r.ixó+ mo_r.is.kxó+ needed?
mo_r.r.ixó+ mo_r.is.kxó+
mo_or.ixó+ mo_r.is.kxó+
mo_or.ixó+ mo_or.ëxó+ mo_r.is.kxó+ mo_r.ës.kxó+
mo_or.ixó+ mo_or._xó+ mo_r.is.kxó+ mo_r._s.kxó+
mo_or.ixó+ mo_or.xó+ mo_r.is.kxó+ mo_r.s.kxó+
mo_or.ió+ mo_or.ó+ mo_r.is.kó+ mo_r.s.kó+
mo_or.iyó+ mo_or.ó+ mo_r.is.kó+ mo_r.s.kó+
mo:ri(ya)- mo:ra- mariska- marska-
we_r.wón.+ \ wr._wón.+ < +n. (dim) = wether
wr._wón.+
wr._xWón.+
wr._s.Wón.+
wr._s.wón.+ dis
wr._s.ón.+
u_r.s.ón.+
u_r.s.ón.+ u_r.s.ór.+
u_r.s.ón.+ u_r.s.ó+ dis
u_r.s.ón.+ u_s.r.ó+ needed?
u_r.s.ón.+ u_r.r.ó+
u_r.s.ón.+ u_ur.ó+
V1r.l > V1V1r. :
bHe_r.xYètló+s
bHe_r.-xY-t.l+[]
mix> bHe_r.-xY-t.ló+
fkYèr.t.ló+
bHe_r.-xY-t.ló+ fkYèr.-t.ló+
bHe_r.-_-t.ló+ fkYèr.-t.ló+
bHe_r.-t.ló+ fkYèr.-t.ló+
bHe_r.-s.ló+ fkYèr.-s.ló+
bHe_r.-ló+ fkYèr.-ló+
bHe_er.-ó+ fkYèer.-ó+
bHe_er.-ó+ fkYèer.-ó+ xWkYèer.-ó+
bHe_er.-ó+ s*kYèer.-ó+ xWkYèer.-ó+
bHe_er.-ó+ s.kYèer.-ó+ xWkYèer.-ó+
bHe_er.-ó+ s.kYèer.-ó+ kWYèer.-ó+
bæ:ra- skæ:ra-
If the two are more closely connected than I believe, it would instead be something like:
bHe_r.-xY-t.ló+ fkYèr.-t.ló+
bHe_r.-_-t.ló+ fkYèr.-t.ló+
bHe_r.-t.ló+ fkYèr.-t.ló+
bHe_r.-s.ló+ fkYèr.-s.ló+
bHe_r.-r.ló+ fkYèr.-r.ló+
bHe_r.-r.ó+ fkYèr.-r.ó+
bHe_er.-ó+ fkYèer.-ó+
bHe_er.-ó+ fkYèer.-ó+ xWkYèer.-ó+
bHe_er.-ó+ s*kYèer.-ó+ xWkYèer.-ó+
bHe_er.-ó+ s.kYèer.-ó+ xWkYèer.-ó+
bHe_er.-ó+ s.kYèer.-ó+ kWYèer.-ó+
bæ:ra- skæ:ra-