--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:
>
> At 8:21:33 PM on Thursday, March 7, 2013, dgkilday57 wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>
> >> 2013/3/7, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> Note that Pokorny's root-shape *kWe(:)d-/*kWo(:)d- (IEW
> >>> 636) is impossible.
>
> >> *Bhr.: why?
>
> > By Moeller's rule, PIE *kWod- would not produce Gmc.
> > *xWat-, but *xat-. Cf. Gothic (etc.) _hals_ 'neck' < Gmc.
> > *xalsa- against Lat. _collum_ < *kWolso-.
>
> What's Moeller's rule? (I'm thinking of *kWóm > *xWano:N
> (Goth. hvana, OE hwone) and *kWóteros > *xWaþeraz (Goth.
> hvaþar, OE hwæþer).)
>
PBB 7:482-3 (1882): "Nur vor urgerm. o, o: und u, u:, nicht vor urgerm. a, a: schwindet ein an anlautendem k-laut haftendes mitlautendes u."
The interrogative-relative exceptions are to be explained by levelling from forms which retained *xW before *e or *i, just as in Latin we have _quod_, _quot_, etc. against _collum_, _coquus_, etc.
Sean made an important point, though (and I cannot find his post to reply to). 'Wheat' cannot be separated from 'white' and requires Gmc. *xwaitja- from PIE *k^woidjo- (cf. Skt. _s'vindate:_ 'glares, gleams'). Thus Moeller's rule does NOT apply to PIE *k^wo-, and an early stage of PGmc must have contrasted *xWo- with *xwo-.
I suspect that PIE *kwo- also became *xwo- and was not subject to Moeller's rule, but the only examples I have found involve cognates to Skt. _kvathati_ 'seethes, boils' (PIE *kweth4-), and the Slavic forms appear to be borrowed from Iranian, so perhaps the Gmc. forms are as well. I will have to study this.
I do not understand Sean's insistence on "opt." *d ~ *t in the 'white-wheat' root, since Skt. and Lith. have -d-, and I reject the connection of Lat. _rutilus_ with 'red', since the original sense appears to have been 'shining, gleaming', with later folk-association to _ruber_ and the like.
I was wrong about the 'whet' root. It is not quasi-Narten but an ordinary ablauting root *k^weh1d- (ON _hva:ta_, etc.), *k^woh1d- (Go. _hwo:ta_, etc.), *k^w&1d- (Lat. _quadrum_, OE _hwaet_, etc.).
I believe Lat. _triquetrus_ belongs to a different root *kWet- found also in _cossus_ 'worm', the latter from *kWot-to-. It cannot be from *kWod-to- because Lachmann's Law would have given Lat. *co:ssus, which would have undergone regular post-long degemination to *co:sus, like _caussa_ to _causa_.
DGK