From: Torsten
Message: 66845
Date: 2010-11-06
>Erh, why?
> 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
> >
>
> I strongly hope your idea is wrong here.
> If your idea will be a rightThe reason I dare go out on a limb here with that collection of glosses is that *dl-/*tl- is so rare an initial cluster in PIE, that one is entitled to suspect it's a loan. This cluster does appear in some of the reflexes, but many languages chose to eliminate it in favour of simple *d-, *t- or *l- (Latin stlatus -> latus). This tendency is across-the-board in IE, not limited to a few languages.
> 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 developmentI can't see why you think that?
> 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:-))
>