[tied] Re: Hittite preterites

--- 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