Re: [tied] o/e or reduplication

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

> There is another plene spelling, given by Melchert as
> we:dand(a), i.e. *wédn.d or *wédend, with accent on the
> initial vowel.

I doubt that it exists. Melchert only quotes the form in two places,
both times to exemplify final -d and -nd. One of the two times the
word is quoted with a macron on the -e-, but the vowel quantity is
not being addressed, and no spelling is cited. Where Rieken and
Kimball expressly treat the vowels of the word there is no mention
of any form with /we:d-/, although they plainly aim to give all
variants. I find it much harder to believe that such an attestation
is unknown to the ladies than to guess that Melchert accidentally
put a length mark on the vowel one of the times and that the wrong
form made it into the index. Under these circumstances we need to
see a real attestation before we can base anything on such a form.

> It looks as if there was a near complete merger in Hittite
> of the two paradigms *wódr., *wédn- and *udó:r, *udén-, with
> the initial-stressed form taking the *-e- from the
> end-stressed form (at least in the oblique: *wódr, *wéden-),
> and the end-stressed form taking the *we- from the
> initial-stressed form (*wedó:r, *wedén-).
>
> So that gives:
>
> NA *wódr (wá:tar)
> G *wédenos ~ *wedénos (wetenas/witenas)
> DL *wédeni ~ *wedéni (weteni/wité:ni)
> All *wédeno ~ *wedéno (wetena)
> IAb *wéden(o)t ~ *wedén(e)t (wé:dand(a)/wetenaz/witenit)
> NA *wedó:r (witá:r)

Even if not stripped of the doubtful /wéd-/, this does not follow at
all. There are other important possibilities than that.

Jens