From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 54941
Date: 2008-03-10
>On 2008-03-08 18:32, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:But shouldn't Kluge have applied to that as well?
>
>> What about þegn?
>
>A good question. And it isn't the only problematic word. Examples like
>*ðeupa-, *xweita- very strongly suggest a development like *dHeubHnó- >
>ðeuBná- > *ðeubbá- > *ðeuppa- > *ðeupa-. On the other hand, this leaves
>*taikna- aberrant and hard to explain -- oddly enough, for at the same
>time it accounts for the denominative *taik-ja/i:-. Frankly, I'm still
>not quite sure what to do make of this contradictory evidence.
>Degemination has the advantage of explaining more individual facts but
>my feeling is that this jigsaw puzzle has not been solved completely and
>one or two pieces are still out of place. *þeGna- beats me completely:
>it behaves neither like *ðeupa- nor like *taikna-, and it's too isolated
>to be analogical the way *freG-ne/a- may well be:
>
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/43658
>
>Of course if one rejects Kluge's Law (or rather the complex of pre-nasal
>changes interacting with VL and GL into which Kluge's Law has been
>unfolded), *þeGna- is a perfectly regular reflex of *tek(^)-nó- while
>everything elese becomes irregular -- but note Gk. téknon with root
>accent, and Gmc. *swefna- < *swép-no-. I would expect +þexna-. It is
>possible that there was a marginal development of *-GWn- > *-Gn- as in
>*uxna- ~ *ufna- ~ *uGna- 'oven'...
>
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/46086
>
>... so another possible solution is to give up the connection between
><þegn> and <téknon>. What if the former is related to <þe:ow> 'servant,
>slave' instead? Beside *þewaz (< *tek(W)-w-ó- 'runner, messenger',
>according to Pokorny, cf. Skt. takvá- 'quick'), there are related nasal
>stems, and something like *tekW-on- might have given rise to a thematic
>*tekW-n-ó-.