Re: Stacking up on standard works

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
<bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> 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;
>

I already considered this etymology, but given the meaning 'glory' of
several cognates in other IE languages, I consider the latter to be more
likely. Yours would be perhaps more appropriate for a different concept
of 'glory', i.e. Yahveh's glory, a large spaceship disguised as a
shining cloud which leaded ancient Jews in their wanderings and helped
them to defeat other tribes (sorry for the "para-scientific" stuff).

> by the way, kwapas isn't from *kWep- (three phonemes)
> but from *kwep- (four phonemes), so no parallelism with *gW-
>

Nobody said otherwise. I think *k- > *g- is a *secondary* development in
the pre-Latin source language, whatever it was.