Re: [tied] Re: *pot-

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:25:37 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- 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 is not clear. *-tn- is not normally reduced in Greek.
My guess would be that the accent has someting to do with it
(reduction in the compound *démspotnia, but not in the
simplex *pótnia).


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