Re: [tied] IE Pots and Pans (Was: Back to Slava)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> On 05-02-15 20:13, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
> > Of course I'm not denying that the root *pot- occurred with
> > the "stative" suffix *-eh1(i)-. I just don't see how
> > inserting a laryngeal makes the derivation of *potnih2 any
> > easier, and the participal suffix -nt- (why was it reduced
> > to -n-?) disconnects the feminine from the masculine form.
>
> The reduction of *-nt- to -n- is hardly unusual in the oldest layer

of

> substantivised participles. We have quite a few agent nouns like
> *tek^þ-o:n (excuse the thorn), where the *-on- can scarcely be

anything

> else but an allomorph of *-ont-. Note also the variation of *-n-

and

> *-nt- in the individualising suffix (whether or not ultimately

related

> to the pres.part.). Presumably the old pronunciation of //-ont-// +
> nom.sg. //-s// was -o:n, with the whole obstruent part of the coda
> deleted.

Or inversely, that -o:n in *tek^þ-o:n etc is the Hoffmann suffix (but
then length is unexplained), and the present participle is the
extension of that with the demonstrative particle nom.m.f.sg. *so,
oblique *to (+ further suffixes).

How come the nominative is always seen as derived from the oblique
stem by reduction?


Torsten