Re: fortis , f- >>

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>
> *If* from *h1rudh-eló-s, it would show an Anatolian diachronic transformation
>

For rutilus = red (gold/yellow) L; it's the same word as rUdrU OCS; eruthrós G; rudhirá- = bloody V S; with xY-xY- dis. or met. (depending on the original) creating e- vs -i-; if you believe D > B "near" u or r , then dH > t near r would be as likely as dir. next to it (trah-, drag), though I'd say it's more complex, since I've said r.>R first, and opt. dH>t by fric. (in this case xY not R). With dis. r-r>l, it would be the native word, meaning ruber << O-U, exactly as wondered about by Andrew Sihler in his "New Comparative Greek and Latin Grammar" since he said O-U v > f/b.

> 2012/12/9, Joao S. Lopes <josimo70@...>:
> > And how about rutilus? <*h1rudH-ro-?
> >
> > JS Lopes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Mensagem original -----
> > De: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...>
> > Para: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> > Cc:
> > Enviadas: Domingo, 9 de Dezembro de 2012 7:41
> > Assunto: Re: [tied] fortis , f- >>
> >
> > Positing /v/ (voiced labio-dental fricative) is an
> > over-simplification: one can at most posit */β/ (voiced BI-labial
> > fricative) for Proto-Italic or Proto-Sabellian OR, on the base of
> > <Saunitai>, maybe a local voicing of Oscan-Umbrian /φ/ (voiceless
> > bilabial fricative), otherwise regularly voiceless ([φ] or [f]). Long
> > /o:/ can be ascribed to a Latial (= Non-Roman Latin) dialect; how do
> > You explain ru:fus then (with /f/ but /u:/)? Anyway, what's important
> > is that Roman Latin DID have /β/, as */dh/ > /b/ near /u/ or /r/
> > proves.Other instances of Latin /f/ for the Oscan-Umbrian outcome of
> > */bh/ and */dh/ directly reflect Oscan-Umbrian /f/, as the enchoric
> > evidence clearly shows
> >