Re: Vowel Coloring

stlatos wrote:

> > It could be *h1ens-ter(n)o-, influenced by *h1eg^Hs-ter(n)o-.
>
> If this is supposed to be the source of extern-, I don't agree. It
> also doesn't explain the other cases of n-N.

I don't know what you think of <extern->, so it's difficult for me to
see why you disagree.

> > The variation s ~ st in Hittite has been proposed before
>
> Yes, but I don't believe it. It's the result of incorrect etymology
> and special cases, like metathesis:

I don't believe it either. I just mentioned the fact that it had been
proposed.

> > Why not the simplest solution: *steu- 'praise, (mid.) become famous'?
>
> That doesn't explain:
>
> >
> > > *kYLewos > *swowos >> H istamas- 'hear, learn'

Complicating a straightforward etymology only to find a parallel for
something else if methodologically unsound. Whatever the etymology of
<istaman(t)-> 'ear', <istamas-> 'hear, obey' (and Luw. tummant- 'ear'?),
there is no necessary connection between it and a verb meaning 'become
public'. They don't have to be explained in the same way.

> Which is almost certainly related, and in exactly the same way as
> derivatives of *kYLu- in other IE.

The derivation of <istuwa:ri> from *steu- is likewise unimpeachable.

> > > The change of a special velar to a fricative before w is probably
> > > also seen in:
> > >
> > > *gWixWwo- > *xWigWwo- > *xWidzwo- > *xWizw(a)- > H huisu- 'alive'
> >
> > The adjective is deverbal in Hittite
>
> I disagree, it's the other way around, like in most IE.
>
> , and the verb has a consonantal
> > stem (<huiszi>, ipv. <hue:s>).
>
> Why couldn't a verb from an adj. become such in Hittite?

Because the adjective forms its own deadjectival verbs in Hittite,
different from the root verb <huiszi>. BTW, <hue:s> requires a preform
with *e rather than *i.

> > Again -- why not choose the simplest
> > solution: *h2wes- 'stay' --> 'exist, remain alive'?
>
> Because that doesn't explain huit- in other forms and related
> languages. The first stage is dissimilation gWw > dw (then first
> affrication and probably tsw>tsy; initial probably > duw- first,
> etc.). Like I've said, the weak case of *gWixWwos was *gWixWu-, so
> that made (by analogy) *xWidwo- *xWidu-. After this > *xWidzwo-
> *xWidu- > *xWizwo- *xWidu- Hittite extends the z of the strong to the
> weak case and the verb made from it, but not in other forms with
> huit-, and other languages don't extend it at all, so the analogical
> nature of the exchange is clear.

Any independent support for the various steps in this scenario? It's
full of dissimilations and assimilations which look quite ad hoc to me.

Piotr