From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 47276
Date: 2007-02-05
>odHos
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> > On 2007-02-05 11:16, tgpedersen wrote:
> >
> > > Latin is full of pseudo-ppp's in -idus; they are perhaps the
> regular,
> > > non-standardized outcome?
> >
> > They correspond regularly to stative verb stems in *-e-h1- (e.g.
> albeo:
> > --> albidus), which suggests that the voicing has something to do
> with
> > the presesnce of the laryngeal. If Olsen's theory about PIE stop
> > preaspiration by consonantal *h1 and *h2 is correct, the form of
> the
> > deverbal adjective can be explained as *-eh1-tó-s > *-etHos > pre-
> Lat.
> > *-eDos > -idus. Cf. also *nogWe-h1-tó- > nu:dus (a similar form
> > accounting for Germanic *nakWaDa-), with plain adjectival *-tó-;
> there's
> > no need to reconstruct an odd-looking *-d(H)- suffix a la Pokorny.
> >
> > Piotr
> >
>
> But for nu:dus we need -odHos, Piotr, not -edHos :
>
> nu:dus < *nogʷ-odHos
>
> I 'can see' how *-eh1-tó-s would give *edHos > idHus (based on a
> supposed h1t > tH > dH)
>
> but 'I cannot see' how *-eh1-tó-s would give *-odHos > *nogʷ-
>Sorry for my unicode *nogʷ-odHos please read *nogW-odHos
> Marius
>