Re: Vowel Coloring

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

>
> 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.

That's not important for this word, but:

> > 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.

But analogy with 'be' could have occured.

> > > 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.

There is no other gWw to compare it to. Whatever you may think of my theory, there's
no way a sound change can account for the difference in huis- and huit-, only analogy in
Hittite, and I gave my reasons.