On 05-02-14 23:56, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> But *pótnih2 is the feminine of *pótis (*pótyo:n), not of
> *pót-h1-onts.
How do you know? It's the feminine term _corresponding_ to *potis, but
not necessarily _derived_ directly from it. My whole point is that they
may be independent derivatives of *poth1- 'be able', *potnih2 being
actually more closely related to Lat. potens (which frequently means
'master'). I don't quite believe in *potyo:n being older than *poti-,
since an extension involving the common individualising/definite suffix
*-o:n is surely a plausible analysis of the former.
Piotr