From: Jens Elmegård Rasmussen
> The acrostatic (Narten) root *te:k^T- (< *te:tk^-?) 'to fashion,
> also looks like a reduplicated formation. Perhaps it originallypresents,
> patterned with the "ordinary" athematic type of reduplicated
> as represented by *dHi-dHéh1-ti/*dHé-dHh1-n.ti 'put'. The originalforms
> would have been *ti-ték^-ti/*té-tk^-n.ti. When the latter hadchanged
> into *ték^T-n.ti in part of IE, paradigmatic coherence was lostand then
> restored by reanalysing the verb as acrostatic, with theanalogical sg.
> *te:k^T-ti. A related thematic stem may underlie Gk. tíkto: <some
> *tí-tk^-e/o- 'bring forth, engender'.
> The explanation above differs from that of Lubotsky, who assumes
> kind of compensatory lengthening replacing reduplication. If thatshould
> be the case, I don't see why _both_ the "thorny" cluster _and_ theI do: Morphological patterns stayed alive, so the form could be re-
> lengthened vowel should have survived. One would expect *tetk^- >
> *te:k^- instead.