[tied] Re: Back to Slava

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

> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:50:37 +0000, Rob
> <magwich78@...> wrote:
>
> >--- 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?
>
> What does *po- mean?

I have no idea. I wasn't expressing preference for *po- over *pot-.

> *pot- has to do with power (Skt. patyate: "rules", Alb. pata
> "had", Lat. potis "able", possum "am able", potestas
> "power", etc.). I'm not sure how to relate the emphatic
> particle -pot (Hittite -pat, Lith. pat "self"). The root
> may also be present in *nepot-.

Yes. Sanskrit patyate: form looks denominal, as if from *potyetoi.
The Latin meaning "able" for potis seems to me a later development
from "master (at something)". However, potestas seems unusual to me -
- it seems to point to a word potus (or potur), poteris.

If *nepot- is related, then we can presume a root *pot-
meaning "power". The word for "nephew" or "grandson", then, would
presumably mean "powerless". However, I don't understand why the *ne-
prefix would have full grade here -- one would rather expect
something like *n.pót-.

Anyways, it seems like there's a root *pot- meaning "power" or
similar, from which we can derive a noun *pot-i-s "one of power"

> "powerful one" > "master".

> The word contained a suffixal *-n- as can be deduced from
> the feminine form *potnih2. If we further assume that the
> suffix was **-in-, and that *-ín- was palatalized to *-íny-
> > *-éy-, we get the following paradigm (stress was
> apparently retracted to the stem from a suffix containing *i
> _before_ the shortening of pretonic vowels, in a move
> reminiscent of the retraction of stress from yers in
> Slavic):

I agree that the suffixal *-n- in *potnix is interesting. However, I
don't see why it is necessary to make the assumptions about the
earlier characterization of the suffix.

> N *pá:t-in-z > pá:t-y&n-z
> A *pá:t-in-m > pá:t-y&(n)-m
> G *pa:t-ín-a:s > pá:t-&y-os
> D *pa:t-in-ái > pá:t-y&n-&`i ~ pá:t-&y-&i
> L *pa:t-ín-ai > pá:t-&y-&i
> I *pa:t-in-át > pá:t-y&n-&`t ~ pá:t-&y-&t,
> f *pá:t-in-ih2 > pá:t-&n-ih2
>
> which gives:
>
> *pót-yo:n
> *pót-im
> *pót-yos
> *pót-in-èi ~ pót-y(e)i
> *pót-(e)yi
> *pót-in-èh1 ~ pót-y(e)h1
> *pót-n-ih2
>
> The nominative *pótyo:n is directly reflected in Tocharian B
> petso (e < *o, ts < *ty, -o < *-o:n). Elsewhere the word
> was turned into a more or less regular i-stem, with N.
> *pótis after acc. *pótim, G. *pótyos or *póteis, L.
> *pótye:y, etc., mainly because *pótis may have been the only
> word in its class. There are a few other words with *-in-,
> but they are all neuters: Skt. ásthi, asthnas "bone"
> (**h2os-tkin-) [Armenian oskr], áks.i, áks.n.as "eye"
> (*HókW-tHin-), sákthi, sákthnas "thigh" (*skn.g-tHin-),
> dádhi, dádhnas "curds" (*dhe-dh&1-(i)n-).

Is it not possible that the Tocharian B form actually points to a
later development *poti-on-s?

> A more common category (also mostly neuters) are the words
> in **-un-, which became u-stems (*-ún- > *-éw-). We have
> *g^onu(r), *g^énwos "knee", *pók^u(r), *pék^wos [*pék^ur,
> *pk^wós] "cattle", *dóru(r), *dérwos "tree/oak",
> *h2ák^ru(r), *h2ákruos "tear", etc. Armenian has retained
> -r (< *-n) in these words (cunr "knee", asr "fleece",
> artawsr "tear") and in adjectives such as barjr, G. barju,
> Pl. (n-stem!) barjunk` "high" (m. *bhérg^hus n.
> *bhérg^hu(r), G. *bhr.g^hwós, Pl. *bhérg^hunes), and traces
> of *-un- are also clearly visible in Skt., e.g. dá:ru
> "wood", G. dro:s / drúnas, L. dá:runi, I. drúna:.

I'm not sure what to say about this right now.

- Rob