From: stlatos
Message: 66645
Date: 2010-09-24
>To update my theory, the order probably was:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> > Some
> > folk-etymological connections between the PGmc. 'fox/vixen' words like
> > *fux-o:(-n-) or *fux-s-a/u-
>
> I'm not sure what relation you're advocating here, but since *-a: +N
> is an anlogical Gmc creation from masculine *-o:N as if < *-o- +N
> (yes, I think it happened before the merger of o/a but that's not the
> main point) there's no reason to think this was the oldest feminine
> form within Gmc or that the ks vs k distinction came from anything
> more than sound changes in different environments.
>
> The oldest fem. ending that can explain this would be *puksni:x
> (analogical after *potni:x) in PIE or soon after. If s>0 / stop_$C
> (assuming for now that -st formed an onset when possible) then
> *pukni:x > *fuxi:n+ / *fuxo:n+ while *puksos > *fuxsaz, etc.
> > Skt. púccHa- 'tail, rear part' (no sexualTo update my theory, the order probably was:
> > connotations, possibly < *puk-s-k^o-) suggests that the 'tail'
> etymon is
> > old enough to count as PIE.
>
> This is much more likely to be met. ~ *puksyo+ > *puskyo+ >
> *pus^c^(y)o+ (like tus^c^ias vs tuccha- 'empty', etc.).
>
> The *-yo+ ending specified location, as in body parts (many with
> both forms surviving in historic IE languages), or with prepositions
> (like *ekYspetnyo+ or your recent mention of Latin e:gregius, etc.).
>