--- In email@example.com
, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> The fox was also (probably) somehow associated with fertility in some
> parts of Europe, cf. the use of fox furs in Dionysian rites. Some
> folk-etymological connections between the PGmc. 'fox/vixen' words like
> *fux-o:(-n-) or *fux-s-a/u-
I'm not sure what relation you're advocating here, but since *-a: +N
is an anlogical Gmc creation from masculine *-o:N as if < *-o- +N
(yes, I think it happened before the merger of o/a but that's not the
main point) there's no reason to think this was the oldest feminine
form within Gmc or that the ks vs k distinction came from anything
more than sound changes in different environments.
The oldest fem. ending that can explain this would be *puksni:x
(analogical after *potni:x) in PIE or soon after. If s>0 / stop_$C
(assuming for now that -st formed an onset when possible) then
*pukni:x > *fuxi:n+ / *fuxo:n+ while *puksos > *fuxsaz, etc.
> etymologically speaking, a fox is more likely "a bushy tail" than "a
> cunning little f**er". Skt. púccHa- 'tail, rear part' (no sexual
> connotations, possibly < *puk-s-k^o-) suggests that the 'tail'
> old enough to count as PIE.
This is much more likely to be met. ~ *puksyo+ > *puskyo+ >
*pus^c^(y)o+ (like tus^c^ias vs tuccha- 'empty', etc.).
The *-yo+ ending specified location, as in body parts (many with
both forms surviving in historic IE languages), or with prepositions
(like *ekYspetnyo+ or your recent mention of Latin e:gregius, etc.).