[tied] Re: Back to Slava

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

> *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-.

Okay. But what did the supposed root *pot- mean?

> >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.

What's the evidence for an original nominative in *pótyo:n? Why did
the vast majority of the daughter languages transform it into an i-
stem, then?

- Rob