Re: Stacking up on standard works

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> There's no borrowing. The oddities of * kwa()tH- can't be sep. from the oddities of * kwa()p(H)- , showing a common orig.
>

What twisted logic!

> The alt. pH \ p in:
>
> af-hwapjan = choke Go; apo-kapúo: = breathe away (one's last) G;
>
> shows pxY with opt. p > pH by x()
>
> and
>
> cupidus,
> cupi:do: \ cu:pe:do: \ cuppe:do: = desire/lust/eagerness L;
>
> vapidus = spoiled/flat,
> vappa = wine that has become flat L;
> ( < * xwa:pa: )
>
> kvapiti = hurry Cz;
> ( < * kwa:pi:- )
>
> kypEti = boil/run over OCS;
> ku:púoti = breathe heavily Lith;
>
> kve:più kve:~pti = blow/breathe Lith; kve:pt = steam/smoke Latv;
>
> kvepiù kvepé:ti = emit odor/smell Lith;
>
> etc.
>
> shows pxY with opt. met > xYp (explaining u/u: / wa/wa: / we/we: , just as in * swadus / wa: / u / u: , etc.).
>
> The e/a alt., usually seen by K shows opt. ke > ka first, before met. of, say * kep-xY-w > * kap-xY-w > * kwaxYp \ kwapHxY \ etc.

Your impressionistic methodology has no way of distinguishing false friends from real ones.

> > I do not understand Sean's insistence on "opt." *d ~ *t in the 'white-wheat' root, since Skt. and Lith. have -d-,
> >
> And t:
>
> çvítna- \ çvitrá- = white S;
> s^vitràs = glasspaper/sandpaper Lh;
>
> as well as:
>
> çve:ta- = white S; svEtU = light (n) OCS;
> etc.

Either a simple root *k^wei- has different extensions and compounds, or different roots happen to have similar meanings.

> It's by comp. white, wheat as well as çve:ta- that t/d is seen here, as in many other words:
>
> speúdo: = hasten, spoudé: = haste G; * speut- > pHoytH = zeal Ar;
>
> kratús = strong G; [*kRadyu>gRadzyu] karcr = hard Ar;
> >
> > 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.).
> >
> Are you still trying to say quadrum isn't < 4 ?

Absolutely.

> > 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_.
> >
> That argument is meaningless since many Latin words show VVC > VCC or the opp., often with what is clearly the older lacking.

Dialectal V:C > VCC as in _Juppiter_ from the vocative. That is a different phenomenon, but I hardly expect you to be able to comprehend that.

> If * kWr,t- >
>
> ordn = worm Ar;
>
> then you have no way of saying it couldn't be:
>
> * kWr,tto-
> * kWr,sso-
> * kWorsso-
> * kworsso-
> * korsso-

"If": little word, big meaning!

> cossus (m) -i: (g) = larva found under tree bark L;
>
> The outcome of rss / etc. in L isn't fully clear. Some ev. seems to show > ss OR met. OR dis. in:
>
> russus, russeus = dressed in red/dyed red L;
>
> kratús = strong G; [*kRadyu>gRadzyu] karcr = hard Ar; hardus Go;
> kAr.t.á = fat/stout Kamv; crassus = solid/thick/dense/fat L;
>
> bl.àts (anim) = short Khow; bassus = thick/fat/short/low L;

_bassus_ is from Oscan and had *gW-anlaut.

> >
> > 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-.
> >
> So, when I argued against:
>
> > PIE *k(^)woi-dH-to- should give Gmc. *haizda-
>
> you said:
>
> > Whether you like it or not, PIE *kWo(:)- loses its labialization in Germanic
> >
> Since all I did to prove my argument was show evidence against yours, and you're doing the same thing now but in reverse of your first stance, why should anyone accept what you say? What are you doing I didn't in the first place? Anyone who argues against you could just make up a new and dif. root with a dif. shape, just as you tried to many times. What logic led you to disbelieve my ev. for one, then change your mind?
>

I made a mistake and admitted it. If that makes me such a bad guy, why do you bother responding to my posts?

DGK