Re: OE *picga

From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 16536
Date: 2002-10-28

--- In cybalist@..., "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> I got an odd idea again.

> PIE *w-g- "weave"
> but there's also a
> PIE *w-d- "web"

What form does Pokorny give for this root?

> so how about this
> -(i)k- forms active participles in a small part of PIE vocabulary
> Lat. am-ic-us
> Gk. guna-ik-
> (and of course it spread to other words later)

You might want to associate the Greek second perfect, in -k-, with
this, as opposed to deriving the second perfect from final laryngeal
in root + -h2a 1s ending as in .

> Therefore Latin 'duco', with that unexplained -k-, is a back-
> formation from 'dux' (and 'facio' from '-fex').
-c- in facio is also commonly assumed to be related to the Greek
second perfect's formative.

> Notice also that
> 'rex' is the guy who sets things right
> 're-' is the thing he sets right.
> Perhaps the velar (gH or k?) is an old ergative, with an absolutive
> in -t- or -d- (amicus vs amatus, *w-g- vs *w-d, found in
> both "transport" and "water" (cf Proto-Oceanic 'wiq' "boat",
> Norse 'viking'), *(H-)r-g- "the man who fixes the order" vs *(H-)r-
> "the thing that is fixed", *(H-)-n-k- "snake" vs *(H)-n- "breath,
> spirit")?

PIE *g in 'rex'. It's a well-mangled suffix if it's real!