Re: [tied] -phóros, -phorós, -fer

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

>
> On 2006-04-07 15:49, Rob wrote:
>
> > Is the /e/ really analogical in _fru:gifer_? Couldn't it be
> > part of the normal reduction of non-initial short vowels in
> > Latin? That is, *fru:giforos > *fru:gifors > *fru:gifers >
> > fru:gifer?
>
> I think something like this would indeed be possible before /r/,
> but Latin generally shows an analogical remodelling of
> compositional nomina agentis after the vocalism of the
> corresponding presents, cf. sacri-legus (not *-ligus from the
> expected reduction of unstressed *-logos).

I could be wrong here, but it seems more likely that the stress on
that word fell on the penultima, not the antepenultima, which would
indicate that the penultima was long (i.e. sacrile:gus).

- Rob