Re: [tied] -phóros, -phorós, -fer

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

>
> On 2006-04-09 21:46, Rob wrote:
>
> > Hmm, it seems odd for _dharma-bhr.t'-_ to have its second member
> > accented, given the zero-grade quality of the syllable. Do you
> > think that's an innovation on Vedic's part?
>
> It's hard to say. Greek and Vedic don't quite agree in this respect.
> The Vedic accentuation may be analogical to other kinds of
> endocentric compounds, which are accented mostly on the second
> member (as in the type of Gk. dru-tómos).

Yes, it seems to me like analogy is the only possible explanation
here. Besides, _dharma-bhr.t'-_ may be a more recent compound than
_nr.-hán-_.

> >>> Also, with the Latin forms, could it be possible that _-spex_
> >>> and _-ceps_ actually come from *-spoks and *-kops?
> >> I don't think so.
> >
> > Well, why not?
>
> *o would have developed differently in Latin, and note that other IE
> branches show root nouns with *e in this position as well.

Oops, you're probably right. I'll have to consult my sources to be
sure. If I'm not mistaken, the object-agent compounds are more recent
than the bahuvrihis, correct?

- Rob