[tied] Re: Hittite preterites

From: Sergejus Tarasovas
Message: 21279
Date: 2003-04-26

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer@...>
wrote:

> Oh no? I meant you may be on to something in terms of root structure
> adjustments in prestages of PIE. Perhaps unpleasant root structures
were
> brought into line with overall rules by a variety of strategies
depending
> on the specific phonotactic setting, but left alone where they
presented
> no difficulties. And, just as with roots in -Hy- which have largely
caused
> misinterpretation of the -y- as a suffixed element, thus some other
> structures could perhaps also contain high-sonantic elements that
have
> been put down as suffixes in our handbooks. A case in point may be
Skt.
> cinóti 'pile up' with PPP citá- (Lith. kitas 'other' from *'added'?)
> which it would be nice to combine with Gk. poiéo: 'I make, compose'
under
> a root form *kWeyw-; that would be no problem for *kWi-ne-w-ti, nor
for
> *kWoyw-eyo:, but it would demand the assumption that the
anteconsonantal
> zero grade changed from *kWyw-to- into *kWi-to-, or that, at an
earlier
> time, the anteconsonantal root form was reduced from *kWeyw- to
*kWey-. I
> wouldn't know how to test such a possibility except by waiting for
> examples to show up.
>

Now I see your point (and am a bit ashamed it took a verbose
rewording). While we are on that, what makes you prefer to connect
Lith. <kìtas> with OInd. <citá-> rather than (simply?) etymologizing
it as *kWi- + *to- > *kitas 'something' > 'something else' > 'other'
(hence depronominal <kìsti> 'change (intr.)', <kei~sti> 'change
(trans.)') (thus comparing it to PSl. *c^Ito 'what; that')?

Sergei