Re: [tied] Re: Poseidon

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 3356
Date: 2000-08-22

 
----- Original Message -----
From: João Simões Lopes Filho
To: cybalist@egroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Poseidon

Of course. Mycenaean was not archaic in this respect:
 
ka-si-ke-ne-to-       = kasigne:tos (<*kati-) 'brother
ke-ro-si-ja           = geronsija (<*-onti-) 'gerousia, council of elders'
sa-ta-si-ku-po-ro-se  = Stasikupros (<*stati-)
 
The variation Potei-/Poti:-/Posei-/Posi:- would have resulted from chaotic attempts to level out the irregularity of posis vs. potei
 
Piotr
 
 
*ti- > *si- in Mycenean?
 
Joao SL
Rio
----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
To: cybalist@egroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Poseidon

Yes, this is a valid objection; po-se-da-o-ne on the Pylos tablets practically rules out *Potis da:wo:n. Note, by the way, that the apparently female counterpart po-si-da-e-ja also appears there. I still think the identification of the first element as potis~posis/Voc. *potei makes sense, whatever the correct analysis of *-da:o:n.
 
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Poseidon

PO-SE-DA-O > no -WO, so it can't be *-dawon
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Poseidon

John,
 
If he was originally the god of earthquakes (and perhaps thunderstorms), what about the following possibility:
 
*potis da:wo:n, Voc. *potei da:won 'Lord Destroyer'