Re: [tied] eye

1) beside Latin oculus we have suffix -ox (-ocis), whose original meaning
might be "eye" cf. velox, celox, atrox, ferox.
ferox, literally "beast-eyed, with appearance of a beast"
2) Alternation *okwsn-/*okwsi- must be *okwsñ- ?

Joao SL
Rio

----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 7:21 PM
Subject: [tied] eye


> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:27:34 , "Glen Gordon"
> <glengordon01@...> wrote:
>
> >Taking Burrows initial and valid explaination of avoidance of final
vocalic
> >-r, the -k is obviously just a product of that purely Sanskrit rule, just
as
> >with /yakrt/ < *yakr < *yekWr. Case closed.
>
> Well, what's the rule? Do we add -t as in <yákr.t> "liver", <s'ákr.t>
> "excrement", or do we add -k as in <ásr.k> "blood", or don't we add
> anything but insert a vowel, as in <ahar> "day", <u:dhar> "udder", or
> do we replace -r with -i as in <áks.i> "eye", <ásthi> "bone", <dadhi>
> "curds" or <sakthi> "thigh"?
>
> Speaking of "eye", another curious thing Eric P. Hamp says: his
> *3wekw- "eye" has "*-tsH/l- [in] Indo-Iranian, Greek, Slavic (>
> *s-stem), Italic (-l-)". Thinking some more about this, I wonder if
> we don't have here another case of -l/-n- in disguise. The data:
>
> Ved. <aks.i>, <aks.n.ás> (in composites also <aks.i->, in Caland
> fashion), du. <aks.i:> (Av. <as^i>, maybe < *<axs^i> due to <us^i>
> "ears")
>
> Arm. <akn>, <akan>, pl. (< du.) <ac^`k`>
>
> Grk. <omma>, <ommatos> or <ophthalmós> (dial. <óktallos>,
> <optíl(l)os>), du. <osse> (<otte>).
>
> Lat. <oculus>
>
> Gmc. *<augan-> (we would expect *awan- or *agwan-, maybe influence of
> *auso: "ear").
>
> Lith. <akìs>, du. <akì>
>
> Slav. <oko>, <oc^ese>, du. (> pl.) <oc^i> [n-stem <okno> "window"].
>
> Toch. A. <ak>. du. <as'äm.>, B. <ek>, du. <es'ane>
>
> We'll leave Hitt. <sakuwa-> and Luw. <tawi-> aside for now.
>
>
> The dual almost unanimously points to *okw-i-h1 (Ved. aks.i: could be
> analogical for expected *aci:). The singular is more difficult: we
> appear to have root nouns in Lithuanian <akìs> and Toch. <ak>/<ek>; we
> have *-(e)n- in Arm. <akn>, Grk. <omma> (< *okw-men, possibly for
> *okw-en-), Germ. *<augan>, [Slav. <okno>]. We have *-(e)l- in Latin
> oculus. We have *-es- in Slavic <oc^es->. We have *-sn- (or is it
> *-tn-?) in Vedic <aks.n-> and *-tH-l-(m)- in Greek <opthalmos>.
>
> It's hard to say what to make of this. Are we dealing with one or
> more singulative suffixes? If so, what is it (are they)? Any ideas?
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>
>
>
>