From: Torsten
Message: 67854
Date: 2011-06-25
>It is true that he doesn't think it is so, since, arguing for a derivation from *sleh1g- "leave off, cease" instead of Buck'e *sleig- "glide, smooth", he doesn't consider stlocus at all, so on the other hand it is not true that he thinks that it isn't so. And since I don't recall having seen anybody other than myself propose that there is a connection between Oscan sla(a)gi- and Latin (st)locus you could say that no one else thinks so, until such time, of course, that some one else realizes that the two glosses are close enough phonetically and semantically that they might be cognates, in which case that person will also think so, which process, by iteration would potentially bring about that several people might think it is so.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> > > > IE *dhe(gh)- and Uralic teke- "put down"
> > > > Latin stlocus -> locus "place"
>
> [...]
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscan
> > 'Latin locus (place) was absent and represented by the hapax
> > slaagid (place)... .'
>
> > Obviously not. Oscan slaagid must be at least root cognate to
> > Latin stlocus.
>
> Brian Joseph doesn't think so; see
> <www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~bjoseph/publications/1982oscan.pdf>,
> in which he connects it with Gk. <lé:go:> 'to leave off, cease',
> with an original sense 'border, boundary' ('where something
> leaves off') later extended to 'territory'.