From: tgpedersen
Message: 33052
Date: 2004-06-03
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:25:40 +0000, tgpedersenwrote:
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
> >> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:20:18 +0000, tgpedersenYes, that's a problem, right? I was thinking of looking at it from
> >> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Burrows: The Sanskrit Language p. 169
> >> >"
> >> >p-ati 'master'
> >> >
> >> >Footnote
> >> >From pa:- 'to protect, govern'. That the /t/ in this word is
> >suffixal
> >> >is evident from its absence inGk. <despoina>. Therefore <páti-
> is
> >to
> >> >pá- (<nr.pa-, etc) as <vr.káti-> to <vr.ka->.
> >> >"
> >>
> >> Burrows is wrong. There is no way *pot- can be derived from
> >> *poh3-.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Not even zero grade *pH3ti- ?
>
> That would give Skt. *piti- (or *biti-).
>
> The only possibility might be a zero-grade *ph3-ot- (as in
> nr.pá- < *h2nr-ph3-ó-), if that hadn't given *bot-, but that
> would be a very peculiar root structure. On the other hand,
> it would explain the persistent o-grade in the word...
>
>