From: stlatos
Message: 70074
Date: 2012-09-21
>So, instead of reg. *prop(i)simus there was suppl. > *prok(W)(i)simus ? That is not worth considering. If I understand your meaning, there's no point in continuing.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
> >
> > It is silly to posit an optional reverse assimilation to *p...p in order to derive Lat. <prope> from *pro-kWe, which would not agree with the usual sense of *-kWe.
> > >
> > prope (adv) propius (com) proximus (sup) = near L;
> >
> > propinquus (adj) = near L;
> >
> > The "Lat. <prope> from *pro-kWe" was made long ago to explain -x- and -qu-, not by me, and though I don't agree with all parts of it, it's impossible to say < p-p with no irreg. or assim. There's nothing silly about what I wrote, or what anyone else has said about assim. in prope (from what you wrote I don't even think you knew or remembered about proximus , propinquus ).
>
> Wrong. I took them into account before my earlier post. There is no reason to assume that <proximus> is based on <prope>, since there is no etymological connection between <bonus> and <optimus>, or <malus> and <pessimus>. In fact it makes better sense to connect <proximus> with Sanskrit <pr.n.a'kti> 'he brings (something) near'.
>