Re: 'Dog' revisited

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> The analysis of *k^wo:n as *pk^wo:n = *pk^u-o:n (derived from

*pek^u-

> 'livestock') has already been discussed on Cybalist. It has

occurred to me

> that the etymology fits in very well with the known patterns of IE

compound

> formation. One only needs to assume that the word is really a

compound in

> which the second element is the "Hoffmann suffix" *-hVn-.

<Snip>

> Hypothetical *pk^ú-hon- could be expected to produce the following

forms,

> among others:
>
> nom.sg. *pk^ú-ho:n > *k^úwo:n (cf. Gk. kúo:n)
> acc.sg. *pk^ú-hon-m. > *k^úwon-m.
> gen.sg. *pk^u-hén-s > *k^uén(o)s etc.
> gen.pl. *pk^u-hn-óm > *k^u:nóm (Cf. Av. su:nam)
>
> Since the compound was obscured very early and the simplification

of the

> cluster *pk^- took place already in PIE, we have no trace of the

initial *p-

> even in Iranian (which normally has *fs^u- as the weak form of

*pasu- <

> *pek^u-).

<Snip>

>Any thoughts?

Is this consistent with the reconstruction of the 'cattle' word as
*pekun-, as Miguel proposes, if I understand hime right, at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nostratica/message/762 ? *pekun- is
perhaps an archaic form by PIE, but, if I understand correctly,
formation of *pk^wo:n is also old history by then.

Richard.