From: Miguel Carrasquer
>--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Piotr Gasiorowski"No, in Piotr's explanation, the -n comes from a separate suffix (the
>> The analysis of *k^wo:n as *pk^wo:n = *pk^u-o:n (derived from
>> 'livestock') has already been discussed on Cybalist. It has
>occurred to me
>> that the etymology fits in very well with the known patterns of IE
>> formation. One only needs to assume that the word is really a
>> which the second element is the "Hoffmann suffix" *-hVn-.
>> Hypothetical *pk^ú-hon- could be expected to produce the following
>> among others:
>> nom.sg. *pk^ú-ho:n > *k^úwo:n (cf. Gk. kúo:n)
>> acc.sg. *pk^ú-hon-m. > *k^úwon-m.
>> gen.sg. *pk^u-hén-s > *k^uén(o)s etc.
>> gen.pl. *pk^u-hn-óm > *k^u:nóm (Cf. Av. su:nam)
>> Since the compound was obscured very early and the simplification
>> cluster *pk^- took place already in PIE, we have no trace of the
>> even in Iranian (which normally has *fs^u- as the weak form of
>Is this consistent with the reconstruction of the 'cattle' word as
>*pekun-, as Miguel proposes, if I understand hime right, at
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nostratica/message/762 ? *pekun- is
>perhaps an archaic form by PIE, but, if I understand correctly,
>formation of *pk^wo:n is also old history by then.