> J'ai seulement dit, que *pu:tium s'était formé bien avant prae-
> pu:tium
> C'est tout.
> > Marius
============
(tsalam? t?ob)
What I meant was :
1. We have two possibilities to analyse prae-pu:tium.
Hyp1 is a compound : prae + pu:t + yo (from pu:t-)
Hyp2 is another compound : prae + pu:tyo- (from pu:tyo-)
2. I have no opinion which is better,
although I tend to think that Hyp1 looks more probable.
3. You are contending that pu:tium can pre-exist
because pretium or ostium exist.
I disagree with this argument because of vocalic scheme.
pre-tium is from pre- with -e-
If Pu:tium has a similar scheme to pretium, then the root should be
p_H3- ou p_w-. It's unclear. Considering other words like *fukk,
it's seems probable that the root in *pu:t is *p_? and the vowel is
*u. And the meaning is "(male) sex, penis".
3. You analyse o:stium as H3oH1-st.
I am highly sceptical about such a root.
Latin o:s- points toward H_H-s. Ok. The structure is ok, but the
contents of this structure are highly unclear.
I cannot see why H_H-s can be proved to be H3_H1-s.
H Can be any of H1 H2 H3.
Sanscrit a:s- can be either H3eHs- or HoH-s.
Vocalic scheme in H_H-s is unclear.
This word does not support Hyp2.
All in all, your arguments do not prove anything when it comes to
Hyp2.
Maybe you are right but for other reasons that those you have
proposed.
Voilà.
Arnaud