On Tue, 25 May 2004 22:27:40 +0000, elmeras2000
<
jer@...> wrote:
I forgot:
>> Now that would be an argument in favour of witenas = *wednós, as
>> I was arguing.
>
>Well, for your stem analysis it does very much matter, for that is
>impossible if the middle -e- is accented as it appparently is. I
>have forgotten why you can't have accent and full grade in there,
>but you seem to be quite phobic about it.
Not at all. You misremember.
You said: "We do not find *wednós at all".
I objected that Hitt. wetenas /wetnás/ may easily reflect
*wednós. And despite the ensuing argument, I still see no
real reason not to read <wetenas> as /wetnás/. Even if the
locative is /weténi/, that says nothing about the genitive,
as shown by Vedic udnás, udén(i).
I don't know why you think I would be phobic about *wedénas.
It would simply be a genitive based on *wedó:r (wita:r),
slightly regularized from PIE *udó:r, *udéns.
I simply prefer *wednós, *wedéni, because of the complete
parallel with Vedic udnás, udén(i).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...