--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@...> wrote:
>
> Quote from Sverre Johnsen:
>
> e.g.Hittite happar-âtrade;paymentâ,happina-'richâ,Latin opulentus ârichâ, Vedic
> ápnas- âpropertyâ.
>
> opulentus < *op-el-ento < *op-en-ento-
>
> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnsen/files/aba%20UCLA.pdf
>
> JS Lopes
I saw a similar derivation made long ago (by David Michael Weeks in 1985). There are many problems with it:
1. It ignores the origin of all other L -lentus.
2. If *-ino- L would not change i>u before l (the Hittite -ina- likely : L -i:nus); if *-eno- H could change e>i [opt], but there would be no good origin for *-eno-.
3. H adds -ant- to many words, making a derivation from PIE from any word with -ant- unlikely.
4. L -lent- is probably older (I don't know why this wierd *-ento- was thought up).
5. Avestan afnahvant- shows the "possession" affix I supported.
There's no reason for a PIE form when they all seem like newer creations.