Re: leudh- > Germanic > OE leode

Am 05.11.2010 11:55, schrieb Torsten:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>,
>
> But that *dhe:-w- root is the one I in this thread proposed to be
> *LaN- (vel sim.!) "put (into the soup/hole), lay down", so we might not
> have to emend *leba- to *deba-, but may derive them both from *LaN-. Cf.
> also the *-lev/*-löv/*-leben (< *-leva, -n from locativic dative),
> referred to extensively (mostly by me) in the archives
> http://tinyurl.com/3azv4ul
> which would then be a cognate (and a Dacian marker?); note that the
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuringii
> are attested relatively late (although the name Tungri in Tacitus might
> be identical, it might have been a landscape name transferred later to
> the new inhabitants). The date is not incompatible with a (Free)
> Dacian/Danish invasion of Denmark around 200 CE.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66612
>
> Torsten

I strongly hope your idea is wrong here. If your idea will be a right
one, then we will have the change of "d" to "l" in Thracian and the
called "sabinic" change of *dakruma in *lacruma cannot be considered
anymore as beeing a specific of Latin but merely a sound change which
happened in the Thracian space as well. Asuming a such development will
show itself to be a valid one, then there will be presumably a reduction
of the paternity of some Latin world in the Eastern Romance:-))


Alex