Re: [tied] Re: lat. nux, -cis - PIE?

On 04-10-31 02:39, Abdullah Konushevci wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
> <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello,
>> Could somebody help me with the IE derivation of Latin nux,-cis
>>and the IE suffixes that are implied here?
>> Especially: do we have a -k^ in the IE suffix of Latin nux?
>> Please add also, if possible, some cognates of Latin nux and
>
> their
>
>>derivations from PIE.
>>
>> Thanks and Best Regards,
>> marius
>
> ************
> To Bjorvand-Lindeman (VAEO, pp.676-677) the protoform of Nor.
> <hnot>, OE hnutu, Lat. nux, cis should be reconstrued as *knew-,
> zero-grade form *knu- (Grim's Law *k > h). Extended form *kne-H-
> could explain Celt. *knu:s, gen. *knuwos > OIr cnu, cno; *knu-k
> within Lat. nux, gen. nucis. So, ital.-celt. protoform should be
> *knuH-, where Lat. gen. nucis < *knuk-es could be explained through
> switch *Hs > *ks.

Raimo Anttila has speculated that the Latin word might reflect *dnuk-
with metathesis rather than laryngeal hardening, thus being closer to
Germanic *xnut- < *knud- than to the Celtic forms. We have no certain
means of knowing whether the initial was PIE *k or *k^, since no Satem
language has the word.

Piotr