Re: [tied] All of creation in Six and Seven

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> 17-11-03 19:10, alex wrote:
>
>> such a irony of the fate: PIE *ne-po:t- was reduced in Latin to
>> "nepos", but its oblique forme was "nepotis", thus the East Romance
>> got it as "nepot" (rom. word).
>>
>> How are these "changes" called? Cyclical changes or "back to roots"
>> sometimes?:-)))
>
> Nothing of the kind. The PIE nom.sg. was *nepo:ts; the nom.pl. was
> *nepotes, the gen.sg. *neptos. Latin simplified this pattern to
> <nepo:s>/<nepo:t-> (generalising a long vowel and eliminating the weak
> allomorph *nept- altogether). Romanian went a step further,
> generalising the Latin oblique stem (just <nepot> across the board,
> from VLat. nepóte- < nepo:tem). It didn't restore the PIE state of
> things.
>
> Piotr

I beg your pardon but I don't see why Rom. could loose the las syllable
"-em". Usualy just the "m" should have been lost.
Since "frate" has the "e" at the end one should have expected "nepote"
too; there is no such form( beside vocative "nepoate") but there is
simply "nepot". Agree?

Alex