From: cewhalen
Message: 71086
Date: 2013-03-14
>They mean the same thing, show e vs a, a vs a: , p/pH or t/tH, etc.
>
>
> --- 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!
>What words aren't cognates: vapidus & vappa ? cu:pe:do: \ cuppe:do: ? af-hwapjan & apo-kapúein ? I don't think I've done anything unusual in that way.
> > 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-,If many, many words show -d vs -t , the likelihood of one expl. vs the other is clear.
> > >
> > 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:There's no good reason for that.
> >
> > 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 know exactly what I'm talking about. I didn't mistake it for the change in the alleged problem of *co:ssus > *co:sus , but that if *co:sus ever did exist, which I deny, then *co:sus > cossus could have occurred.
> > > 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.
>
> > bl.àts (anim) = short Khow; bassus = thick/fat/short/low L;No ev.
>
> _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-.I'd say you're "such a bad guy" because you keep making claims with no evidence, like no -dr- / -tr- alt. (to avoid quadrum < 4, etc.), and acting like the evidence presented for it is somehow unworthy for no reason; you keep making mistakes and act like those who correct you are only making the argument because they're stupid, even if in this one case you came to recognize your mistake.
> > >
> > 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?
>