Re: Kluge's Law in Italic? (was: Volcae and Volsci)

From: stlatos
Message: 68474
Date: 2012-02-02

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:

> >
> > I don't think any additional complications are needed. It's already seen that tx > tHx was opt.:
> >
> > pathana- = broad Av; [e>a-a] patáne: = flat dish G;
> >
> > and tH > T > D > d in Latin.
>
> No; see <status>.


Are you saying that had -tH- in PIE and tH>t not tH>T in Latin? If not you might be arguing against t>tH by x as I wrote above. If so, that would be ev. if the rules were reg., but they're not.
Instead of repeating my many arguments in favor of that, I'll say: yes; see stabulum L; staflar- U; what part of "optional" don't you understand?


>
> > Even assuming they're the same, rivers are also named from 'wide', as in potamós = river G.
> >
> >
> > Many place-names in Italy (not necessarily Latin or even Italic) seemed to be named from words for 'wide' like:
> >
> > Lavernium, Lavinium, Laurentum
> >
> > from
> >
> > * LaxYs.w+ \ Laws.-xY+ = covering > thin flat stone / burial slab / wide shelf / etc.
> >
> > as in
> >
> > laws^ = thin flat bread MArm;
> >
> > * La:huNkos > lâ:igx = small stone G;
> >
> > ? >> lousa = slab/tombstone Portu;
> >
> > la:ru(v)a > la:rva = bad ghost/spirit / mask L;
> >
> >
> > > > So, assuming a relation of pateo: with petánnu:mi , met. of e-a: > a-e: could have been included, instead of a derivative in *-exY+, though it's hard to tell.
> > >
> > > Hard to tell anything, when arbitrary optional soundlaws are pulled out of a hat!
> > >
> >
> >
> > What is more or less arbitrary than your * pht- that can't explain the -a- in pathana- = broad Av; etc., and the necessarily opt. e>a-a in patáne: = flat dish G; vs. pétalos = broad / flat G; (one of many obvious irregular assimilations in G short vowels)? It should be obvious, in this root in particular, that many irregular and opt. changes occurred in IE, including the tn>dn>nd that you argue against.
>
> I reject the notion that Greek <pétalos> 'unfolded, spread out' and <patáne:> 'plate' reflect the same root.


Then do you also reject the notion that Greek bárathron = pit is related to Ion. bérethron = pit < * bérathron? How about pálai = of old/late, w *pelai >> *pelaistkós = oldest people > Pelasgós / Pelastikós ?


> If Greek <potamós> originally meant 'broad river', not 'rushing as though flying river', we can explain it as well as Avestan <paþana-> 'broad' by postulating a PIE root *peth4- 'to broaden, stretch out',


That's what I said; having such a root, or needing to have it in your group of expl., makes everything else you said unnecessary and almost certainly wrong. The meaning didn't have to be 'broad river', just as easily < 'fathom, deep water' or 'thing ext. in 1 (or 2) dimensions' (one word could mean 'broad, long, deep' by itself, opposed to 2D+round, in 3D, etc.).


> No conclusions can be drawn from the superficial similarity of some place-names in Latium. Laurentum is commonly referred to <laurus> 'laurel', a non-IE word as shown by Greek dialectal variation,
>


It is idiotic to assume every word in Greek w dialectal variation is non-IE, as I've said to several people who lack basic discernment. They're < * d.r.uw-xY-LewkY-xY-n.ó+ = light-colored tree.


>
but the connection is uncertain. Without further information, one might equally well cite <laurex> 'young rabbit' (Balearic according to Pliny), <laurio:> 'serpyllum, thyme' (Gaulish, Plin. Val.), or Greek <laúra:> 'narrow passage, alley, sewer' as possible relations. Lavernium might be connected with Laverna, a goddess of gain worshipped on the Aventine Hill (and considered Etruscan by Ernout, Vetter, and Fiesel), or conceivably with <laver> 'edible seaweed, Porphyra sp.'. La:vi:nium might be related to Grk. <lâas> 'stone', or to the river <Lâos> dividing Bruttium from Lucania, or to neither. Guessing at the meanings of place-names in order to further one's own etymological agenda is pointless.
>


When some place-names are obviously from 'broad', and many could be, there's no reason not to think it. That kind of thinking you give above would make it impossible to form any et. for any place.