Re: Stacking up on standard works

2013/3/5, Tavi <oalexandre@...>:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@...> 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.
>>
>> That's not kYw- but kw- (kvapas = breath/odor Lith; etc.), and
> neither would be a regular change.
>>
> That's right. In fact, considering *gW- > Latin w-, think *k- > *g-
> happened in these and other words such as glo:ria < *kleu-.
>
> In my opinion, these and other "irregular" changes (rather frequent in
> Latin) would indicate these words followed a different path than the
> lexicon considered to be "inherited".
>
>
>

*Bhr.: there's no need of *k'leu- for glo:ria, Greek khlo:r'o-s is a
perfect match; by the way, kwapas isn't from *kWep- (three phonemes)
but from *kwep- (four phonemes), so no parallelism with *gW-