From: dgkilday57
Message: 70333
Date: 2012-10-30
>Correct. In "Kluge's Law in Italic?" I argued that Latin <lippus> 'bleary-eyed' should be referred to *(h2/4)libH-no'- by Kluge's Law (the root found in Greek <alei'pho:> 'I anoint, wipe, smear'), not with Walde to *lip-wo'- by Wood's Law (although Kluge would work equally well with Walde's root *leip-). I believe *(h2/4)lip-wo'- would have regularly yielded Lat. *lipuus.
> 2012/10/24, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
> >
> (...)
> > (...) Now, Gallo-Latin <beccus> 'beak' opens a can of worms. If we
> > temporarily disregard the issue of some Romance reflexes pointing to close
> > /e./, we might notice the similarity to Old English <becca> 'ligo' i.e.
> > 'hoe', explained by N. van Wijk (IF 24:232-3, 1909) on the basis of *bHeg-
> > 'to break', the weak noun continuing either *bHegnon- or preferably
> > *bHegon-, *bHegn- with Kluge operating on some of the oblique cases, the
> > geminate then being generalized. If a similar thing happened in Celtic,
> > *bekkon- might have signified 'pecking bird, woodpecker, figpecker, etc.',
> > reinterpreted in Gaulish as 'beaky bird', whence the extraction of *bekkos
> > 'beak'. But several things have to go right for this explanation to work.
> >
> > I think the comparison of Kluge's and Graszmann's Laws is good. That is,
> > there is a strong (but not universal) tendency for this sort of thing to
> > happen independently. In my post "Kluge's Law in Italic?" I understood
> > Latin <siccus> 'dry' as continuing *sikW-nos, from the root *seikW-. I have
> > never liked the idea of "expressive gemination", particularly when dryness
> > hardly requires more "expressiveness" than wetness; indeed one would expect
> > the reverse. But labiovelars in Germanic do NOT behave this way under
> > Kluge, so the assimilation in Gmc. and Italic cannot be due to the SAME
> > EVENT. Likewise if it happened in Macedonian to produce the name Perdikkas,
> > as suggested.
> >
> (....)
> > Anyhow, unless we can agree on the origin of geminates in Celtic, we have
> > reached an impasse.
> >
> > DGK
>
> Just a rapid detail before the impasse: do You accept Wood's
> theory of (generally speaking) sequences of plosive + */w/ yielding
> geminates in Germanic, Italic, and Greek? I've a vague reminiscence
> that You don't, but I don't remember exactly:
> Francis A[sbury] WOOD, Post-Consonantal w in Indo-European (LanguageUnfortunately this is not available on the Web, even in the dreaded Snippet View format. To discuss Wood's theory in detail, I will have to wait until I get a chance to visit the state university library, sometime before December I hope.
> Monographs published by the Linguistic Society of America edited by
> George Melville Bolling, Aurelio M. Espinosa, Samuel Moore, Daniel B.
> Shumway â" Number 3 ⧠December, 1926), Philadelphia, Linguistic Society
> of America, 1926 [Protat Brothers, printers, Mâcon (France), 1927]
> [124 p.].