From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 57756
Date: 2008-04-20
"Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@... net> wrote:Oh, I think I get it: the common element in the Greek and Sanskrit words is *dhug-, which was followed in Indo-Iranian by *h2 then the *-ter suffix, but in Greek by *a or some vowel then the *-ter suffix. But how does <a> appear in Greek in this position when <a> was so rare in Indo-European, especially in unstressed position (discounting *h2e). Why can't Greek <thugate:r> also reflect *dhugh2ter-? This has probably been discussed before (whether answered is another question) but I'll mention it here as it is pertinent to the discussion.At 12:39:07 PM on Sunday, April 20, 2008, Andrew Jarrette
wrote:
> Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@... edu.pl> wrote:
>> (2) Even assuming for the sake of the argument that the
>> root was for some unknown reason extended with *-h2 in
>> PIE (or an epenthetic vowel independently in Indic and
>> Greek) before the agent suffix, we still can't accoun for
>> the Greek form in this way. Gk. tHugate:r can only
>> reflect *dHugV-, certainly not *dHugHV- (which would have
>> given +tukHate:r). This shows very clearly that
>> 'daughter' and 'milking' are unconnected.
> So why then does <duhitâ> have <-h-> if the Greek form can
> only reflect *dHugV- and not *dHugHV-? Shouldn't Sanskrit
> then have *dugitâ instead?
<http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/44331>
------------ ---But the Proto Indo-Iranian form posited there (*dHugh2ter- ), while accounting for the Sanskrit form <duhitar->, does not correspond to the Greek form <thugate:r> which Piotr says can only reflect *dHugVte:r. Do the Sanskrit and Greek forms go back to two different independent etymons?
Andrew