... Hans Kuhn, in a list which matches up Latin and Germanic roots with /a/ (and therefore, presumably, from PIE /a/) has sapio: together with Gothic afsebbjanMessage 1 of 21 , Jun 30, 2006View Sourcetgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> and <sapio:> "taste, know" (OHG <intseffen> "perceive") vs. OE (etc.)Hans Kuhn, in a list which matches up Latin and Germanic roots with /a/
><sefa> "mind". These do not have nasalization and are not preceded
>and followed by *w or *u, so is *a or *e original, or are the Latin
>words with *a formations that are unrelated to the OE etc. formations
(and therefore, presumably, from PIE /a/) has sapio: together with
Gothic afsebbjan (vel sim., by memory!). It would seem the /e/ is due
_______Yes, I know the /e/ of <intseffen> (OS <afsebbian>) is due to umlaut. By formations with *e I was referring to OE <sefa> "mind, understanding, heart" (= OS <sebo> and I believe ON <sefi>), which I would suppose is related to <intseffen>/<afsebbian>.Andrew
... Possibly Latin liber/*luber? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/44457 Loan? Which reminds me: OI lo:g wage, price , Lat lucrum gain,Message 1 of 21 , Jul 5, 2006View Source
> > > Never heard of that. If so, why Latin <libet>,Possibly Latin liber/*luber?
> > > older <lubet>, "pleases", related to OE <lufu>
> > > "love"? And if *u>i there in Germanic, then one
> > > would not find <lufu> nor <lof> "praise" nor OE
> > > <lybb> "drug" (OHG <luppi>) related to Irish <luibh>
> > > "herb".
> > Depending on the time the rule occurs PIE *bh could
> > have been *f in Latin; with dissimilation of *oi>ei;
> > *eu>ei; *u>i later (if *lub>*lab fits in with *wr.()w
> > > *ar()w it's probably fairly old).
> Hans Kuhn (again), who would like to place the pre-Romans and pre-
> Italics somewhere near his beloved Nordwestblock, points further to
> the West German river Lippe, older Lupia.
> Sporadic, ie sociolectal ü/u (cf the history of Dutch [ui], in the
> neighborhood), later i/u?
Which reminds me:
OI lo:g "wage, price", Lat lucrum "gain, advantage".
These are related classically in PIE, if we posit the existence
of 'extensions' *-b and *-k, of no particular meaning. If I declare
instead this a case of allofamy, both *leu-b- and *leu-k- would be
derived from some foreign *lau(G)- with *-b and *-k being PIE
renditions of the final of the loanword.
So, maybe I should ask again: should 'allofamy' be considered a
permissible concept in PIE?