From: george knysh
Message: 20437
Date: 2003-03-28
> Well, it doesn't. One could of course claim that******GK: In 15th c. Ukrainian documents "nevista" is
> *neve^sta is an isolated archaic formation, but one
> additional difficulty is the fact that in the groups
> that have it (Germanic, Greek, Indo-Iranian) *-isto-
> attaches itself directly to the root without a
> thematic "buffer", i.e. *new-isto-, not *newo-isto-.
> *ne + *woista: (= *woid-ta:) is certainly more
> plausible from the formal point of view, especially
> since *(iz-)ve^stU 'known' is well attested in
> Slavic. Cf. also *ve^stI 'news', *ve^stiti
> 'announce', etc. Perhaps the precise meaning was
> 'not officially pronounced married' rather than
> 'unknown'.
>__________________________________________________
> Piotr
>
>
>