Re: Water, pre/postpositions, somewhat OT

>
> >>In any case, there is
> >> ansolutely no reason to posit an original root
> >> *etxal-/*etxar-, and no possible way that such a root could
> >> have developed into general Basque <etxe> (combining form of
> >> course <etxa->).
> >>
> >> Now a pre-Basque word *(t)egi "house", combining form
> >> *(t)eg-, when combined with the diminutive suffix -xe would
> >> have given *(t)eg-xe > etxe regularly.
> >
> >Trask says all palatalising suffixes are recent. <Etxe> isn't.
>
> All palatalized suffixes are probably derived from earlier
> non-palatalized suffixes. More generally, all palatalzed
> segments are derived from earlier non-palatalized segments.
> Sometimes we don't know what the original segment was, as in
> the case of -xe (*-se or *-ze), although it was probably -se
> (a form etse exists).
>

So you're saying *(t)egi + *-se > *etse? It doesn't sound right to me.
I could believe *(t)egi + *-ze > *etse.

Torsten