Re: Celtic languages?
| From: | Muke Tever <hotblack@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 13:54 |
|---|
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 03:11:52 -0700, Elliott Lash <erelion12@...> wrote:
> --- Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:
> >
>> > In the texts we have, we have '-cue' meaning
>> 'and'. We also have */p/
>> > being lost - 'uer' for Latin 'super'.
>>
>> The loss of IE /p/ is common to both Q and P
>> 'Celts'. If _uer_ is cognate
>> with Latin _super_ we also have a loss of /s/.
>> That's very slight evidence.
>
> Well, actually, it's probably a case of that so-called
> IE phenomena "moveable-s"
>
> The word may have been:
> *s-uperi
> *uperi
>
> O.E ofer
> Sanskrit upari
> Celtic uer > maybe: O. Irish for 'on'
> Greek hyper (from *super(i))
> Latin super
Actually Greek |hyper| isn't necessarily from *super, given that all initial y- (save
the name of the letter itself) comes out to hy- in any case, whether there was
an *s or not. Given that Italic is apparently the only one with an *s there
(which it also has in |sub|, which again isn't attested in other families) the
Italic s- is probably an innovation.
*Muke!
--
website: http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt: http://kohath.deviantart.com/
FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/
Reply