>> ===========
>> In a previous mail, I suggested the root is *kuH1 "to bite"
>> From that you an derive a participle :
>> kuH1-nto' > G.C *hundaz
>>
>> Cf. PEAleut qeR "bite" qeReRlaq "wolf".
>>
>> Arnaud
>> =========
> Patrick:
> PEAleut qeR, 'bite'?
> What does that tell us?
> You trot it out like it had any significance; and do not even give us the
> courtesy of explaining what _you_ think its bearing might be.
>
> ***
We have been discussing the work "dog".
(Hope you noticed that)
We discussing if it should be *k^won (standard view) or *k(^)uH1on? (my
view)
(Hope this makes sense for you)
Somebody (I don't remember who) said this is not a participle.
And Rick asked where did -d- come from ?
I think this word for "dog" whether it is suffixed by -on? or -nto- is
derived from a verb meaning "to bite"
and Proto-Eskimo-Aleut is so far this only place where the verbe "to bite"
*kuH1 is still alive and has a synchronically motivated derivative meaning
"wolf".
In short, because courtesy is also a good reason to be short :
I believe PIE inherited or created two words for "dog = biter" :
*kuH1-on? (mobile stress)
*kuH1-nto- (final stress)
Arnaud
================