Re: [tied] o/e or reduplication

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 May 2004 02:23:33 +0200 (MET DST), Jens Elmegaard
> Rasmussen <jer@...> wrote:
>
>
> >> I simply prefer *wednós, *wedéni, because of the complete
> >> parallel with Vedic udnás, udén(i).
> >
> >This will be reading an alternation into the graphics of a

paradigm that

> >do no show that. What is the basis of the assumption that the

presumed

> >cluster of /wedn-/ would be written with -te- and -ti-?
>
> Standard Hittite orthographic practice. The cluster is
> written using signs that echo the preceding vowel (/linkta/
> = li-ni-kta, /walhzi/ = wa-al-ah-zi). How else could
> /wednas/ be written?

It would be normal for it to be written *ú-(e-)id-na-(a-)as. It
would be most unusual if an intervocalic two-consonant cluster was
written in a way that could indicate a vowel between the consonants.
That appears to be avoided as a general rule. Therefore the five
spellings ú-wi5-te-na-as, ú-e-te-na, ú-e-ti-na-an-za, ú-i-te-ni-it,
ú-i-te-na-as given by Rieken for case forms other than the loc.sg.
can hardly have /dn/, but would seem to demand /-den-/ just like the
loc.sg. ú-i-te-e-ni, ú-e-te-ni.

Jens