Re: [tied] Re: Back to Slava

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:20:28 +0000, Rob
<magwich78@...> wrote:

>
>
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
>wrote:
>
>> Is the -t- of Latin 'potis' etc an agent suffix?
>>
>> Torsten
>
>Perhaps. The word is certainly morphologically complex -- I'd say
>either *pot-i-s or *po-t-i-s.

*pot-i-s is not very complex. It an i-stem (in my opinion,
an *in-stem) based on *pot-. I see no basis for an analysis
*po-t-.

>However, the Vedic form pátih. does
>not seem to fit the reconstructed o-vocalism (the form should be
>*pá:tih. via Brugmann's Law, I think).

The Vedic paradigm is:
N pátis
A pátim
G pátyur
D pátye:
L pátya:u
I pátya:

f pátni:

where only the N and A have an open syllable. The original
PIE nominative was *pótyo:n (= Toch. B petso), also with a
closed syllable, so Brugmann's law could only have worked in
the accusative, where short /a/ was analogically restored.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...