Re: Family terms [was: Kluge's Law in Italic?]

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
>
> > > The important thing is there is no ev. for *-dHlo- anywhere, especially where tH and dH survived as distinct sounds (Skt).
> >
> > You have not convinced me that there is no ev. in Skt., which does have a few adjectives ending in -dhras and nouns ending in -dhram, -dhras, or -dhri:.
>
> What does that matter? There's no question that roots ending in dh could have adj. in ro like any other (*aidh > vi-idhra-, grdh > gr.dhra-, etc.); it's only the supposed unit *-dhlo- that doesn't exist, w no such words meaning '_ tool', etc., in Skt.

I have already argued that oxytone *-dHló- is a compound suffix, with deverbal *-ló- attached to the zero-grade of a root extended by *-dH-. Thus in my view Lat. <stabulum> continues *st&4-dH-ló-, just as Grk. <stathmós> continues *st&4-dH-mó-. I now think that barytone *-dHlo- is also a compound suffix. Words like Grk. <zeúgle:> 'collar of a yoke', Lat. <sella> 'seat', and Go. <sitls> 'id.' testify to a PIE suffix *-lo-/*-leh2- taking normal grade. Beside Grk. <génethlon> and Lat. <fa:bula> I would place Skt. <várdhras> 'girdle, strap, belt', PIE *wér-dH-lo-, from *wer- 'to surround, contain, cover', the root reflected in Skt. <vr.n.óti> 'surrounds, covers, protects'.

Earlier I suggested that the normal-grade deverbatives <génethlon> and <fa:bula> were originally quantitative as opposed to the zero-grade implements like <stabulum>. However, normal-grade <zeúgle:>, <sella>, <sitls>, and <várdhras> all denote implements, rendering such a clear-cut distinction dubious in practice. I suspect that these normal-grade *-lo-deverbatives were originally abstracts which acquired concrete sense, more or less 'yoking', 'seating', 'girdling, strapping'.

DGK