Res: Res: [tied] Re: (was Latin Honor < ?) Bestia

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@>
> wrote:

>> At 1:41:47 AM on Monday, June 27, 2011, Torsten wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
>>> <gpiotr@> wrote:

>>>> W dniu 2011-06-26 08:09, Torsten pisze:

>>>>> Trick question: what would happen to PIE *stVló- in
>>>>> Oscan?

>>>> Two things wouldn't: *o > a: and k > g

>>> That's true for a regular derivation within PIE; I suspect
>>> that both Latin (st)locus and Oscan sla(a)gi- are
>>> substrate words, related to those Boutkan discusses here:
>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/61680
>>> the semantics of which, "swamp" etc, would match the Oscan
>>> sense of "border";

>> Only if one deliberately distorts the attested semantics by
>> choosing the most atypical datum.

> You're not expressing yourself very clearly. Do you mean to say
> that "border" is the most atypical sense of the two attested
> senses "border" and "region" of the three known occurrences of
> *sla(a)gi-?

Of course not. I am obviously talking about 'those Boutkan
discusses here ... the semantics of which, "swamp" etc, would match
the Oscan sense of "border". The semantics of that group do *not*
match 'border': 'swamp, morass' is clearly an outlier.

The repetition of the word 'semantics' and the fact that it was
the subject of the clause to which I was replying should have made
this obvious, and even a cursory review of Boutkan's data would
have confirmed the obvious.

Brian