Re: [tied] *pot-

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:57:35 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> 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-.
>>
>
> pan "lord" Polish
>
>and
>
> dés-poina "mistress of the house,
> female ruler" Greek
> pótnia "mistress of the house" Greek
>
>Why is that, if -t- is not a suffix?

The suffix is -n. Greek *pot-n-ih2 > potnia is regular.
-poina comes from *ponja, reduced from *potnja.

That Polish pani comes from *potnih2 (with pan backformed on
it) is an old idea of mine, but doesn't seem to be tenable.
The lengthening o > a is not easily explained, and the older
form is OCz. hpán, suggesting *gUpan-, a borrowing from
Iranian (also z^upan, etc.)

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