From: Torsten
Message: 67862
Date: 2011-06-26
>Time flies.
> W dniu 2011-06-25 07:17, Torsten pisze:
>
> > 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.
>
> They are, however, sufficiently different to make an etymological
> equation difficult (to say the least). "Phonetic closeness" means
> little by itself unless you can suggest how they are derived from a
> common root. OLat. stlocus is routinely referred to PIE *stel-
> 'erect, fix, make ready' (vel sim.), but the details are far from
> clear. Pokorny's *stlo-ko- makes no sense as an IE form. A root like
> *slek- won't work, since initial *sl- was simplified already in
> pre-Latin times rather than receive an epenthetic *-t- in Old Latin.
>
> I would suggest that the word was once trisyllabic and that it was
> affected by the syncope of the initial syllable at a time when
> Italic stress was still mobile (there are fairly convincing examples
> of such a process in Brent Vine's paper [still in press], which you
> may remember from the 2009 Copenhagen conference).
> Vine suggested there developments like *dHogWHó-ko- > *þo(G)wóko- >Trick question: what would happen to PIE *stVló- in Oscan?
> *þwoko- > focus 'hearth' (from *dHegWH- 'burn'), and my impression
> is that in such cases an unaccented short vowel was typically lost
> in an open syllable between an obstruent and a liquid or glide. A
> hypothetical *stVló- would meet such a descrition, so perhaps the
> best way of emending Pokorny's etymology would be this:
>
> We can therefore start with PIE *stoló- 'base, support (for placing
> things on)' (cf. PSl. *stolU 'table; throne, seat', Lith. sta~las
> 'table'), possibly Germanic *sto:la- 'stool, throne' with a long
> grade if not from *stah2-lo- (the two roots are confusible in
> derived forms). Cf. *stel-on- 'plant stalk/shoot' in Germanic (OE
> ste(o)la) and Latin (stolo, stolo:nis). The semantic shift from
> something like 'base, seat' to 'place, post, location, abode' is
> easy and commonplace. The suffixed derivative *stoló-ko- would have
> yielded pre-Latin syncopated *stloko- > (st)locus. Nothing to do
> with Osc. sla(a)gí, I'm afraid.