Re: [tied] eye

>Well, what's the rule? Do we add -t as in <y�kr.t> "liver", ><s'�kr.t>
>"excrement", or do we add -k as in <�sr.k> "blood", or >don't we add
>anything but insert a vowel, as in <ahar> "day", ><u:dhar> "udder", or do
>we replace -r with -i as in <�ks.i> "eye", ><�sthi> "bone", <dadhi> "curds"
>or <sakthi> "thigh"?

You... aren't... listening. I said that Sanskrit avoids final vocalic /-r/.
Sanskrit /-ar/ has consonantal /-r/. So forget /u:dhar/. The rule applies to
the final vowel /-r./ and involves the reinforcement of the syllable with
previously existing suffixes like *-t (used in Hittite often as a noun
formant). I'm not sure but I recall Sanskrit /-ka/ as having a nonthematic
alternate /-k/ (*-kW-). That would explain /asrk/.

In all, the rule is:
Final /r./ is strengthened phonetically by a terminating
stop using pre-existing noun formants like /-k/ or /-t/.

Again, only Sanskrit has /-k/ in /asrk/.

>We have *-(e)l- in Latin oculus.

You mean you're not aware of the Latin diminutive (cf. /stella/ "star" <
*xste:r + -la)?

>It's hard to say what to make of this. Are we dealing with one or
>more singulative suffixes? If so, what is it (are they)? Any ideas?

No. There are no "singulative" suffixes aside from the animate nominative
*-s. We're dealing with different derivatives of the same verb *xWekW-
(H3ekW-) "to see".

- gLeN


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com