From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 70555
Date: 2012-12-11
> Would DH->T be some Anatolic substratal/adstratal via Etruscan?
> JS Lopes
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> De: stlatos <sean@...>
> Para: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Enviadas: Domingo, 9 de Dezembro de 2012 18:38
> Assunto: Re: [tied] 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
>> >
>
>
>