Re: PIE suffix =t in food?

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@ wrote:
> >
> > at least *okti "bear" from *h2rtk´os (exact loangiver not identified AFAIK) appears to require *o being derivable even from previous IE *a anyway; and must also be assigned to a layer distinct from the one with *H- > *k-.
> >
> >
>
> If *okti < *Hrtkos requires the positing of a new sound law (*a > *o), along with at least two non-trivial changes specific to this word (metathesis and the deletion of *r), what compelling reason is there to think that *okti and *Hrtkos are related to begin with?

Deletion of SOME consonant here is trivial on account of CCC clusters not being allowed in Proto-Uralic or its early dialects. It is true tho that *orti would seem perhaps more expected: there is derivational evidence for *lkt > *lt and possibly *rpt > *rt in PU, & I can't recall seeing liquid loss among the Finnic material where C1 is lost.

The wide distribution of metathesis of *tk in IE would seem to mean it's also not a particularly bad assumption. And lastly, the word fits into the widespread pattern of Uralic *o in place of *a widely across IE.

It's certainly not a particularly strong loan etymology and I would not base any strong arguments on it, but this still appears to be the best line of explanation for this word (being found in Finnic and Mordvinic only is not compelling evidence for PU origin).

--BTW what IS the latest understanding of the development of *tk? Is *kT still what is reconstructed for Late PIE, or has a better model emerged? Given *tt > *tst > st ~ ss, something like *tk > *tsk > *kst > kt ~ ks would seem largely parallel.

_j.