[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?
>
> *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-.

Latin ipse, too

>
> >> >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).
> >>

How would you deal with Latin hospes, sospes?

Could it be that -pVt was used so often as an unstressed semi-suffix,
that 're-stressed' -o- was generalised into the root?

Meillet speculates on variation between -pse and -pte in Latin and
theorizes that this might reflect an old nom./oblique variation?


Torsten