Re: [tied] The two *sekW's

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 7633
Date: 2001-06-14

It's conceivable (not to say more than likely) that the second *sekW- is a dissimilatory by-form of *swekW-, i.e. *wekW- 'say, tell' plus "mobile" *s-.
The development *kW (as well as *k^w) > k before rounded vowels is regular in Latin, cf. pre-Latin *sekWondos > *sekondos > Lat. secundus 'second, following', or *jekWr > *jekWor > *jekor > iecur 'liver'. The labiovelar, however, was often restored analogically, which is why we have <equus> (on the analogy of <equi:>) rather than *ecus, or <quod> (like most other *kW-pronouns) rather than *cod. Latin eliminated the paradigmatic alternation k : kW by generalising one or the other of the alternants; cf. vo:x (with the early simplification *-kWs > -ks), pl. vo:ces (analogical, instead of *voques < PIE *wokWes).
----- Original Message -----
From: Cyber Kuryber
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:31 PM
Subject: [tied] *seq- "follow" and *seq- "tell"

Can anybody offer an explanation why

there are two separate IE roots (Pokorny)

*seq- meaning "follow, go in order" lat. sequor, gr.

(/epomai, eng. sequence, etc.


*seq- menaning "tell in order" (lat. inseco < insequo
- b.t.w. why did the labiovelar simplify into the
gutural here?- gr. )enne/pw < *en-sequo)