From: tgpedersen
Message: 36203
Date: 2005-02-10
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:25:37 +0000, tgpedersenwrote:
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
> >> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:57:35 +0000, tgpedersennot.
> >> <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
> >Why?And from what is not clear can't come something which is clear, ie.
>
> 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).
>