From: Torsten
Message: 66853
Date: 2010-11-07
>Actually, I don't think I can give rules for the treatment of *L- in the separate languages. Since it's a loan, it might be a double, triple or whatever loan, with modifications on the way, so that the sound may have several reflexes in the same language.
> 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?
> >
> 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.
>