Res: Res: [tied] Re: Latin -u/o/i-lentus < *PIE - went-?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@...> wrote:
>
> Quote from Sverre Johnsen:
>
> e.g.Hittite happar-‘trade;payment’,happina-'rich’,Latin opulentus ‘rich’, Vedic
> ápnas- ‘property’.
>
> 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.