Re: PIE suffix =t in food?

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

>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for this list. The most intriguing title is the one about words with Fi. -aav- corresponding to Gmc. *-aww-. If these came indeed from Gmc., they must have been borrowed before the Verschaerfung, when Gmc. laryngeal residues still constituted distinct phonemes, with the vowel-lengthening occurring later within Proto-Finnic. But the Gmc. shift *-o- > *-a- had already occurred (otherwise Fi. *-oov- from Early PGmc *-oHw-, no?), so if there is a stratum with Fi. *ka- from PGmc *Ha-, one would expect the EARLIER borrowings from EPGmc *Ho- to show *ko-, not *o-, unless I'm overlooking something (which I could well be, considering my track record in this thread).
> > >
> > Fin. didn't have -ww-, so in adapting Vww > VVw, nothing odd exists. Since the type of Gmc isn't known, and ww / jj has such diverse outcomes, nothing seems to be shown concerning H.
>
> Diverse outcomes??

Doublets like:

xw > _w > mývell = ball OIc;
xw > ww > gWgW > ggv > miggel = snowball Sw;

from *mixYw- = round _ (compare: mi:va:mi (1s) = grow fat S; )

comparable to sim. doublets from zd or opt. eC > e: (vs æ:). So I assume opt. changes like xw > ww ( > uw ) OR xw > kw (like: qius Go; kvikr ON; cwic(u) OE; (but more likely xw > Xw > qw first) , among others.

>
> > Many words with -ww- are posited from something other than Hw; some definitely weren't from Hw. Some show the possibility that wj > ww (or wj > jj ; etc.):
> >
> > druwis = belief / faith OPr;
> > triggwa = alliance Go; trú(a) = belief ON; trúwa = trust/faith/fidelity OE;
> >
> > druwi:t = believe OPr;
> > trúa = believe ON; trúan OHG; trúwian OE;
> >
> > trum = firm/strong/trustworthy OE;
> >
> >
> > Notice that the cognates don't have uH > u: (or even related Gmc (trum)); u:w in some comes from opt. uww > uuw .
>
> Considering the state of the Old Prussian remnants, it would be rash to assert that they contained original short -u-.

But, comparing trum = firm/strong/trustworthy OE; etc., with others like:

duruva- = healthy/safe OP; [cont. dr,h-] dhruvá- = firm/stable S;

droón (a) Hes = strong G; sU-dravU = well/healthy OCS; zdorovy R;

no ev. of H is seen in words in which H would be clear (assuming your only concern is OPr spelling).

> As for the Gmc. words, no myth. opt. uww > uuw is necessary.

Ah, so when I give ev., that anyone can see, it's merely a myth. Your completely imaginary possibilities, with no ev., only the probability of borrowing (assuming only fully reg. changes exist), that you give all the time, are something different?

>

Some IE roots have both anit.- and set.-forms, so here we posit *drew- beside *drewH-. Within a set.-root paradigm we can have *drewH-V- > Gmc. *trewwV-, *drewH-C- > *treuC-, *druH-V- > *tru:(w)V-, etc. Paradigmatic levelling requires no myth. opt. sound-shenanigans.

>

Words like:

mývell = ball OIc;
miggel = snowball Sw;

are obviously from the same form, which would never have such alt. in any normal description of PIE. Other opt. in Gmc. confirms the existence of irreg. changes as much as anything can.

> OE <trum> simply continues the anit.-adj. *dru-mo-; Go. <triggwa>, ON <tryggr>, OE <tre:ow> etc. reflect *trewwa-; the forms with -u:(w)a- have zero-grade of the set.-root, secondary OE -w- (wk. II <tru:wian> from Low WGmc *tru:(w)o:jan).
>
> In this case I suspect the set.-root contains the perfective root-extension *-h2, thus *drew- 'to make firm', *drewh2- 'to make completely firm', like *pet- 'to fall through the air, fly' and *peth2- 'to fall (completely) to the ground'.
>

There's no reason to assume dif. roots in any of those, or others. In words like:

pari-da:- = give/grant/deposit with, pári:-tta- = given away/up

bhága-tti- = luck bringer S; (compare: Do:sí-theos G; )

the root was obv. * doxW- = give with x() which COULD be lost, often in compounds, though not regularly (compare:

* dexY- = bind
detós
melándetos = "black-bound" / iron-rimmed H G;
ásaMdita- = unfettered V S;

that retained x() in the same env.


By comparing other supposedly non-IE languages, an opt. x > h > 0 vs h > ? > _ (mora) or sim. is likely.

> I further suspect this verbal postfix *-h2 is identical to the nominal collective suffix *-h2, both having approximately the same force as Gmc. *ga-, thus *udorh2 > *udo:r 'collected water, Gewaesser'.

Others have assumed neu. pl. was identical to fem., with the same amount of ev. (none).

>
> DGK
>