Re: [tied] OE *docga 'Fido'?

From: João Simões Lopes Filho
Message: 16480
Date: 2002-10-21

succos < *suknos ?
so, we'd have a *sukon- / *sukno-.
Or this k-ending came from a laryngal ? suH- > suk-

Joao SL
----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] OE *docga 'Fido'?

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen
> To:
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 11:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] OE *docga 'Fido'?
> > But is that related to the suffix in 'pig' and 'dog'? And what is the
relation to the Celtic *succos?
> No, OE -a in <frocga> etc. is the weak masculine ending (PGmc. *-o:n-,
like Latin -o: in homo: = OE guma; the plural is <frocgan>). It corresponds
to Goth. -a, OHG -o, and ON -i. Swedish -a in <sugga> is historically the
strong feminine ending (= PIE *-ah2), I think, corresponding to OE -u in
<sugu>. Celtic *succos seems to be much the same thing as Germanic *suko:,
except for the gender and the geminate (either expressive or derived from an
original cluster).
> > BTW strange that *su- "one's own; in-laws(?)" are related to swine in
IE, as if the pig was part of the family. Even stranger that something
similar occurs in Austronesian ("pet pig").
> "Babe: Pig in the City"? All right, I'm not convinced at all that
*su:s/*su- 'pig' and *swe- are related. There's _perhaps_ a connection
between the 'pig' terms and *suHnus 'son' via *seuH- 'bear offspring', but
even that is only a conjecture.
> Piotr
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to