>Probably the latter, since <jussus> could have been influenced by the perfect <jussi:>.
> W dniu 2010-07-14 00:22, Tavi pisze:
> > I think Latin <*Auster*> 'South wind', Lithuanian <*aus^trìnis
> > (vêjas)*> 'NE wind', Latvian* <àustrums> *'East', Germanic
> > **austra-n* 'East', Slavic **u:strj-* 'summer' are all loanwords from
> > Italoid **aust-r-*, a reflex of IE **Xaidh-* 'to burn; fire'. I
> > suppose Italoid had **-dh* > *-st *as in native Latin <*aesta:s,
> > aestus*> but with a different vocalism.
> In Latin, both *-sr- and *-dHr- would have given /-br-/, and in view of
> what we know about Italic phonology there is no earthly reason why *dH
> should have developed into /st/ in that branch or any language
> genetically close to it. Indeed, we get -d- in <aede:s> 'hearth'. The
> morphological cluster *-dH-t- gives both /-ss-/ and /-st-/ in Latin
> (iussus vs. aestus), and there are too few examples to be sure which of
> these developments is "regular".
> Of course <auster> may contain the suffix of contrast, PIE *-tero-, butIs there any objection to *aus-tero- as 'shinier (side of the sky)', hence 'southern (side)', since the sun usually occupies this side? We have the simple connection of 'south' and 'sun' in Germanic. A certain lake in Wisconsin has Sunnyside Road along its south and Shadyside Road along its north. This would seem to clear up the connection between <auster> and <auro:ra> without recourse to such artificial idiosyncracies as the shape of Italy or the wind in the supposed Proto-Italic homeland.
> "a different vocalism" is not something to be treated lightly. _WHY_
> auster and not *aester? Are we back to etymology as "une science où les
> voyelles ne font rien et les consonnes fort peu de chose"?