Re: leudh- > Germanic > OE leode

Am 06.11.2010 12:13, schrieb Torsten:

>
> The 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.

that appears to be a normaly development for a cluster which is hard to
speak out, thus a such development is an expected one.

>
> > 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:-))
> >
>
> I can't see why you think that?
>
> Torsten

oh, I think it should be self explanatory. One example is here the given
Latin "lacrima" from ie *dakru with "sabinic" "l" for "d" ( s. Conway
IF.2, 157 ff).
If the change is not Sabinic but it appeared in Thracian as well, then
it is not anymore a selfunderstanding that Italian "lacrima", Romanian
"lacrima" is one and the same as Latin "lacrima". Of course it appears
absurd to me to consider that the Italian and Romanian words are not
deriving from the Latin word. Yet, considering your scenario, we will
have the suppositionaly situation where _even_ the Thracian reflex of
ie. *dakru will be *lacru, as the Latin one.... To be honest, I doubt
this was indeed the reality at that time.

Alex

It could have just been an error of transcription. Greek lamba does look like delta minus a line at the bottom, perhaps in a manuscript, the delta was partially effaced. But I know nothing of Greek manuscripts and handwriting, but if someone on the list does, s/he can illuminate us.