From: stlatos
Message: 71028
Date: 2013-03-05
>Wrong. You're probably thinking of kWo > ko , a theory I don't agree with:
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> PIE *k(^)woi-dH-to- should give Gmc. *haizda-,
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-05-27 22:22, Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> One funny thing about PGmc. labiovelars is that they tend to lose their
> labiality next to root-internal apophonic *o, as in *gWolbHo- > *kalBa-,
> *dHogWHo- > *ðaGa- or *kWol(h1)so- > *xalsa-. That doesn't seem to work
> with *warma-, so perhaps it reflects *gWHermo- (as in Gk., Arm. and
> Alb.) with a coloured vowel. Unfortunately, there are too few secure
> examples to see what really happened to initial *gWH and velar + *w
> combinations in Germanic. I like derivations like *g^Hwer- > *Ber-an- on
> some days but hate them on others.
>
> > *pn,kWttis > *funxWstiz > fist
>
> A well-taken point. Of course it's still possible that xW was
> delabialised after *u even if a nasal intervened, especially as nasals
> were vocalised very early in this position.
>
> > I understand. When I first began my reconstruction
> > I hoped I could find regular rules to explain all the
> > KW>P changes. However, nothing worked well enough and
> > I couldn't come to any conclusion but KW>P being
> > sporadic, varying with position and the type of KW,
> > and possibly ending prematurely in some languages due
> > to kW>k(w), etc.
>
> ... which is probably the majority opinion. Thanks for the nice discussion.
>
> Piotr
but whether that ev. is right or not, it's dif. than kYw (aihwa- Go;).
>
and PIE *k(^)wi-twa-ti- should give Grk. *tisatis,
Wrong. Besides, those who connect isátis and woad assume borrowing >> G.
so I doubt that the three words for 'woad' in question have any etymological connection.
>
> DGK
>
Well, they're def. not connected to s^vìtra-, but only one person said that.