Re: Foxtail

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

>
> On 2008-01-22 02:55, stlatos wrote:
>
> > The oldest fem. ending that can explain this would be *puksni:x
> > (analogical after *potni:x) in PIE or soon after. If s>0 / stop_$C
> > (assuming for now that -st formed an onset when possible) then
> > *pukni:x > *fuxi:n+ / *fuxo:n+ while *puksos > *fuxsaz, etc.
>
> Not impossible, and even quite elegant, except that *fuxi:n- is
> unattested

I assume here that words in *-i:x > *-i:N before the *-a:x > *-o:N
type gained prominence, but it's not something I'm certain about.

(the <vixen> type is a derivative in *-in-jo:); but if the

> loss of *s is accepted (other examples would be welcome),

Maybe lauhmuni vs *leuksmn, and *luksna:x, etc., as well as the lack
of sim. -ksmo- and -ksno- in Gmc. as opposed to Latin and Greek, etc.

I also previously mentioned sim. to *bhudsmo+ > *bhutsmo+ > *buTsma+

> *buTma+, *ekYspteryo+ > *ibridya+ > bridd, etc.

This assumes that, for example, the root *wags+ formed *waxsmo+
relatively late by analogy.

> one can
> imagine an originally nasal stem, i.e. something like
> *puk^s-en-/*puk^sn- > *fuxsin-/*fuxn- > *fuxan-, fem. *fuxo:n- (just
> improvising), beside the thematic type *puk^s-o- > *fuxsa-.
>
> >> ... possibly < *puk-s-k^o-) ...
>
> > This is much more likely to be met. ~ *puksyo+ > *puskyo+ >
> > *pus^c^(y)o+ (like tus^c^ias vs tuccha- 'empty', etc.).
>
> I can't see why it should be _much_ more likely.

Mainly, why not *puksk^o+ > *pukk^o+ > ? first since, despite your
questions about it in Gmc., a very sim. rule is known in Indic. If
you think all KsK > sK first, I disagree, though I'm willing to ask:
do you have any more examples?

Second, met. in this cluster could have been common (tus^c^ias vs
tuks^s).

Third, from tus^c^ias vs tuccha- the outcome of -sky- in Skt is
fairly clear.

Fourth, all words for body parts are known to have variants with
*-yo- or *-i- so no further effort in finding a unique derivative is
necessary.

> The suffix *-k^o- (or
> exists, and the development of *sk^ and palatalised *-sk- is the

same in

> Skt.

Did something not come through here? Anyway, as I've said, I don't
believe in this *-k^o-.