Re: Stacking up on standard works

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > > > Also some of De Vaan's etymologies, e.g. Latin vitrum
> > > > 'glass; woad' from IE *wed-ro- 'water-like' are rather
> > > > inventive, to say the least.
> > >
> > > It can't be all that inventive, since Sihler (223.5)
> > > accepts it. He also says that 'for the semantics there
> > > are a number of parallels'.
> > >
> > > > The problem is De Vaan's systematically tries to derive
> > > > everything from the reconstructed "PIE" using "regular"
> > > > sound correspondences, regardless of other considerations.
> > >
> > > Broadly speaking, that's a feature, not a bug. In
> > > particular, when such a derivation is possible without
> > > unreasonable contortions, it necessarily has primacy. This
> > > isn't to say that it can't be displaced if a better
> > > derivation is found, but the bar for any alternative is
> > > pretty high.
> >
> > The real problem with de Vaan is his willingness to use slippery soundlaws and those (including some of Schrijver's) erected on a very slim etymological basis. The purported soundlaw *-dr- > Lat. -tr- has almost nothing but <taeter> against <taedet> behind it, and is contradicted by <quadri/u-> (which Sihler acknowledges but, true to character, does not explain).
> >
> Gamkrelidze-Ivanov and Nikolayev agree in deriving vitrum from *k´wei-t- 'light, white' (cfr. Lithuanian s^vìtra- 'sandpaper'), with *k´w- > Latin w- as in *k´wep- > vapor.
>

That's not kYw- but kw- (kvapas = breath/odor Lith; etc.), and neither would be a regular change.


There's no reason to expect a regular change for either above; quadru- shows tr > dr , dr > tr in taeter , maybe vitrum , and definitely:

uter utri- = water-skin L; hudría = water pitcher G;

utur U; water E;

(showing it's Italic), and either dhr > tr or something odd in trahere, among some that are unclear.

> On the other hand, Germanic *waizda- and Greek isátis 'goad (Isatis tinctoria)' would be derived from the same root with different suffixes.
>

I don't mind if it's not a regular change in L; but if you say rel. to s^vìtra-, what causes what's obv. not the reg. outcome in Germanic and Greek? That looks like good ev. AGAINST s^vìtra- : vitro- , even if 'woad' is primary (or 2 words happen to come to sound the same, let alone if from 2 orig. roots *wed- and *wis-).