From: stlatos
Message: 71042
Date: 2013-03-05
>Also, probably:
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@> wrote:
> >
> > --- 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).
>
> There's no reason to expect a regular change for either above; quadru- shows tr > dr , dr > tr in taeter , maybe vitrum , and definitely:
>
> uter utri- = water-skin L; hudría = water pitcher G;