From: dgkilday57
Message: 71026
Date: 2013-03-05
>PIE *k(^)woi-dH-to- should give Gmc. *haizda-, and PIE *k(^)wi-twa-ti- should give Grk. *tisatis, so I doubt that the three words for 'woad' in question have any etymological connection.
> --- 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.
>
> On the other hand, Germanic *waizda- and Greek isátis 'goad (Isatis tinctoria)' would be derived from the same root with different suffixes.
>