Re: *pot-

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

> 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's exactly my point. From the same morphemes we construct two
forms, identical in meaning, but one is reduced, the other one not.
Why?

>
> That Polish pani comes from *potnih2 (with pan backformed on
> it) is an old idea of mine, but doesn't seem to be tenable.

Hermann Möller sought a derivation from the same root, which is
one reason he analyses out -t-.

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/pt.html

> 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.)
>

Torsten