Re: Latin acipe:nser "sturgeon"

Rather than "Kilday's Law", we should be speaking of Kretschmer's Law, since it was Paul Kretschmer who observed and explained its operation in Paeonian, an Illyrian dialect (Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache 247-9, Göttingen 1896).  My humble contribution in this area is the recognition that Lusitanian _Iccona_ (= Gaulish _Epona_) places the Lusitanian language into the Illyrian (or "Epiro-Macedonian" or whatever) group.  Kretschmer recognized the soundlaw decades before I was in diapers and his name should be on it, not mine.  Anyhow, it is restricted to the Illyro-Lusitanian group, and should be applied to Latin problems only when borrowing from that group is plausible.

Reflexes of PIE *h2/4akW- are not restricted to one corner of the IE world and show enough ablaut to qualify them as inherited words.  Two long Russian rivers are named _Oká_, beside which we have Latv. _aka_ 'source, spring' and Lith. _akà_ (also _âkas_) 'vent-hole in the ice on a body of water, ice-hole'.  Zero-grade formations are Skt. _ká:m_ 'water' (*h2/4kWó:m, formed like *dHgHó:m 'earth') and the Polish river _Kwa_, borrowed from a pre-Slavic centum language.  Old Norse _Æ´gir_, the name of a sea-god, reflects the vriddhi *h2/4e:kWjós 'possessing water' i.e. 'owning the sea'.

Greek _o:kús_, Skt. _a:s'ú-_ 'swift', Latin _o:cior_ 'swifter', etc. require two laryngeals before the palatal.  One suggestion is an intensive reduplication of the root of *h1ék^wo- 'horse' (i.e. 'swift' or 'running animal'), namely *h1o-h1k^u-.  If this connection is rejected, the root could be in normal grade, *h1oh3k^u-.  Either way, Lat. _acupedius_ 'swift-footed' has zero-grade *acu-, in which the second laryngeal was vocalized to /a/ before the first was lost.  A single initial laryngeal would simply vanish in this position in Latin.

The great difference between *h2/4akW- and *h1oh1/3k^u- makes it extremely implausible that they are different forms of the same root, one inherited by "standard" PIE, the other borrowed into the "standard" dialect from some other dialect of PIE.  Anyone proposing such a thing has the very difficult task of identifying a large enough body of doublets in the PIE rootstock to establish the soundlaws connecting the "standard" dialect with the presumed other one.  Not only must you find needles in all the haystacks on the farm, but you must also show that each needle forms a matched pair with some other needle.  Not a very promising project!

Posttonic gemination in Italian _acqua_ is regular and parallel to that in _tacqui_ 'I was silent', in which Lat. _tacui:_ [táku(w)i:] was first syncopated to *taqui: [tákwi:] in Vulgar Latin, then underwent gemination to *tacqui: [tákkwi:] in Central Italian dialects of VL.  According to Clara Hürlimann (Die Entwicklung des lateinischen _aqua_ in den romanischen Sprachen 9-12, Zürich 1903), _aqua_ with simple [k] is heard in the far North of Italy (Cremona, Padova, Torino, etc.), while _aqua_ and _acqua_ with [kk] coexist in the boundary zone (Venezia, Bologna, Piacenza, etc.).  This gemination started early enough for Probus to hear it and complain about it.  (His complaint had the same result as all other prescriptivism.)

Hans Krahe regarded the language of his Old European Hydronomy (OEH) as Gemeinwestindogermanisch, and dated it to the middle of the 2nd mill. BCE.  He would be shocked to learn that in some circles today, OEH is regarded as several millennia older, and more archaic than PIE itself.  This severe backdating of OEH is entirely unwarranted, although I do think Krahe's theory requires revision on some points.

The daughters of Gemeinwestindogermanisch (or as I prefer, Old Western IE) should not include Baltic and Illyrian.  Krahe was unaware of Winter's Law and did not recognize a close relation between Baltic and Slavic.  His associate W.P. Schmid went off the deep end after Krahe's death, identifying Proto-Baltic with both PIE and the OEH language, and insisting that the PIE homeland was on the Baltic shores.  In fact the OEH material in the Baltic area, like the unsatemized vocabulary (e.g. Lith. _akmuô_, Latv. _akmens_ 'stone' against Lith. _as^muô_, Latv. _asmens_ 'cutting edge'), can easily represent a pre-Baltic centum substrate, a northeastern daughter of OWIE.

Illyrian in my view belongs with Macedonian, Messapic, Lusitanian, and Belgic (which I identify with Hans Kuhn's Nordwestblock language).  Lusitanian appears to be younger than the OEH stratum.  As a working hypothesis, I associate the OWIE expansion with the Bell-Beaker movement (thus centuries earlier than Krahe's estimate), Belgic and Lusitanian with the Urnfield (thus "Sorothaptic" is indeed appropriate for what I call "Illyro-Lusitanian").

Dybo's Law affected Balto-Slavic as well as OWIE, but Kluge-Stokes' Law involved only OWIE, whose recognizable daughters are Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Ligurian, and Venetic.  Dybo's Law must thus be older than Kluge-Stokes', and must have operated on the common ancestor of OWIE and Balto-Slavic, with the areal episode of satemization befalling Proto-BS after its separation from OWIE, and before the movement of the Balts to their historical homes.

One thing I overlooked earlier with the 'sturgeon' word is that the protoform requires not only *-kk- but also *-pp- to explain the Romance reflexes (_kópeze_ with the original accent, _kopéze_ with the Latin accent, both given under REW 129).  The second geminate is indeed preserved in the glossary-form _aquippense_, where the first has been lost with folk-etymological reshaping after _aqua_.  This invalidates whatever I proposed earlier for the etymology, and I will have to start over.

DGK