From: pielewe
Message: 41298
Date: 2005-10-12
> The simplest and most natural explanation, if available at all, isthe
> safest bet, at least initially. The -da(:)o:n part recurs inidentified,
> <e-ne-si-da-o-ne>, where the first element can be securely
> cf. Gk. <enosis> 'shaking, earthquake' and <enosikHtHo:n> (another/Potei-
> epithet of P.). I have little doubt that the segmentation Posei-
> is correct, and if so, this can only be the old vocative of<posis>.
> As to the origin and interpretation ofvariant of
> *da:(h)o:n, I remain agnostic. There is a similarity of phonetic
> treatment, and a similar range of variation, in <hermao:n> (a
> <herme:s>), but I'm not sure yet what to make of it.As an amateur graecologist who enjoys watching real graecologists
>