*nepot- Nephew (was: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

>
> Sergei:
> > And as to *nep-t, Martin Huld writes in EIEC:
> > "...correct segmentation revealed by the feminine forms is *nep-

ot-

> > in which -ot- is the same nominal suffix found in Germanic

*me:no:þ-

> > 'month' (from 'moon') or Hit <si:w-att-> 'day' (from 'daytime

sky')".

>
> But then where's **nep(o)- without suffix? I doubt this for *nepot-.
> As for the other examples, isn't this just the suffix *-t as we find
> optionally in *melit 'honey' marking inanimates? Since *nepot- isn't
> an inanimate, this certainly sounds fishy unless we have reason to
> think this is a "Mädchen" kinda thing.

If you look at Pokorny root #1373, you'll find the Germanic forms (OE
nefa etc.) which have been reconstructed elsewhere as deriving from
Germanic *nebon. I suppose this might be parallel to English _seven_
etc. < PIE *septm..

The Brythonic forms also lack a dental - Welsh _nei_, _nai_, Cornish
_noi_, Middle Breton _ni_. This can be contrasted with Welsh _saith_
etc. < PIE *septm., where a cluster of sorts (-ith- < *-ct- < *-pt-)
was preserved in Brythonic. Is there a sound-change explantion for
the loss of the dental in Brythonic. The dental is preserved in the
genitive in Old Irish.

Richard.