From: Torsten
Message: 67869
Date: 2011-06-29
>Only three obviouses and one clearly, but it's a short text, of course.
> --- 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.