Re: Stacking up on standard works

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:

> > There's no reason to expect a regular change for either above; quadru- shows tr > dr , dr > tr in taeter , maybe vitrum , and definitely:
>
> In _quadri/u-_ we may have contamination with an old word for 'whetstone', *quadrum, replaced by _co:s_; cf. OE _hwaet_ 'keen, bold', OS _hwat_ 'id.', OHG _(h)waz_ 'sharp, rough, severe', ON _hvatr_ 'bold, vigorous'; OE _hwettan_, OHG _wezzan_, ON _hvetja_ 'to whet', from PGmc *xwatjanan. Whetstones are generally square and *quadrum could have passed into the meaning 'square', whence _quadra:re_ 'to make square', and squares have 4 corners.
>

That is certainly a possibility that I would never have thought of. There's a reason for that.

> I will accept (Sabino-Latin) dialectal -dr- > -tr-, also -lb- > -lp-, -nd- > -nt-, etc. (The latter explains _scintilla_ beside pure Latin _scindula_.)
>
> > uter utri- = water-skin L; hudría = water pitcher G;
>
> Possibly Sab.-Lat.

So all Latin words that would have -dr- were influenced by Sab.-Lat.; none survived?

>
> > utur U; water E;
>
> Mere graphy, since _utur_ was written in the Etruscan-based alphabet, with _t_ doing double duty for /t/ and /d/.
>

That's why I included uter at the same time.

> > (showing it's Italic), and either dhr > tr or something odd in trahere, among some that are unclear.
>
> I derive _trahere_ from *treh2-g^H-.
>

What reg. rule would you assume for hg() > g() ? Nothing I've seen looks reg.