Re: [tied] o/e or reduplication

From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 32935
Date: 2004-05-26

On Wed, 26 May 2004, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> 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).

This will be reading an alternation into the graphics of a paradigm that
do no show that. What is the basis of the assumption that the presumed
cluster of /wedn-/ would be written with -te- and -ti-?