Re: Another funny root

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

>
> The acrostatic (Narten) root *te:k^T- (< *te:tk^-?) 'to fashion,

create'

> also looks like a reduplicated formation. Perhaps it originally
> patterned with the "ordinary" athematic type of reduplicated

presents,

> as represented by *dHi-dHéh1-ti/*dHé-dHh1-n.ti 'put'. The original

forms

> would have been *ti-ték^-ti/*té-tk^-n.ti. When the latter had

changed

> into *ték^T-n.ti in part of IE, paradigmatic coherence was lost

and then

> restored by reanalysing the verb as acrostatic, with the

analogical sg.

> *te:k^T-ti. A related thematic stem may underlie Gk. tíkto: <
> *tí-tk^-e/o- 'bring forth, engender'.
>
> The explanation above differs from that of Lubotsky, who assumes

some

> kind of compensatory lengthening replacing reduplication. If that

should

> be the case, I don't see why _both_ the "thorny" cluster _and_ the
> lengthened vowel should have survived. One would expect *tetk^- >
> *te:k^- instead.

I do: Morphological patterns stayed alive, so the form could be re-
made as *tí-tk^-e/o- which, the second time around, would survive,
because the development of "thorn" was now over.

Jens