Greek question & the pre-history of *nekwt

[Yoel L. Arbeitman]

Dear Pat and Colleagues,

	In a word the answer is YES. The durative-iterative, same morpheme
involved, of Hittite dai- (< IE *dhe:) "to place, etc." is written
<zkissti> which represnts /t-skizzi/ where the root d(ai-) is reduced to
its minimum and the iterative -ski- is added with retrogressive
assimilitation of radical d to t. [Answers continued below].

At 02:52 PM 3/14/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Dear Yoel and IEists:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Yoel L. Arbeitman <yoel at mindspring.com>
>Date: Saturday, March 13, 1999 11:16 PM

>> The question of what was the form of Hittite and Anatolian "drink" has
>>progressed greatly since Sturtevant's time. In 1980 Morpurgo-Davies showed
>>that the cognate in Hieroglyphic Luwian was /u:/ and since *gw disappears
>>in HL, but *kw does not, the problem is solved. Proto-Anatolian had the
>>verb *e/agw-, known so well in that famed sentence deciphered by Hrozny' nu
>>NINDA adanzi nu watar akwanzi "And they eat bread and they drink water" .
>>It was long thought that here was the cognate, as a verb, of Latin aqua
>>"water". But now it is certain that the iterative-durative form cited
>>represents /akw=skizzi/ with regressive voice assimilation.

>You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that
>ak-k{.}u-uS-ki-iz-zi [akuSkitsi]  is derived from /akw+sk+izzi/,
>representing [aguSkitsi]. Do you have other examples of devoicing a stop
>before /sk/ in Hittite since, of course, it is, to my knowledge, unknown in
>IE?

>>And, long
>>before the 1980 discovery W. Winter proposed the cognation of Latin ebrius
>>"drunk"/ sobrius "sober"  (with -b- < *-gwh-) as well as Greek ne:phalos
>>"sober" with -ph- < only *-gwh-. Thus, far from being cognate with Latin
>>aqua, Anatolian *a/egw- is cognate with Latin ebrius "drunk", Gk. ne:phalos
>>"sober" and the long ago proposed Tocharian yok- "to drink". All argument
>>has been closed by the Hiero. Luw. verb which is reduced to a mere /u:/ and
>>is not open to argument.

>Thomas reconstructs IE *eg{w}- for Tocharian yok-; while IE g{w} normally
>corresponds to Latin [v] and Greek [b/d/g], even IE g{w}h does not yield the
>required Latin [b] either though it *might* yield Greek [ph]. We are being
>asked to accept an IE root, *eg{w}h-, which appears *without* the expected
>Latin reflex [v] for IE *g{w}h, and with a *-ri formant; and to equate that
>with Greek *ne + *eg{w}h with a *-l(o) formant. While this may be correct, I
>do not think that the data is so conclusive as to foreclose argument.

>Also, are you asserting that IE g{w}h like g{w} appears as HL /u:/?

To the last question, the IE labio-velar and aspirated labio-velars as part
of the general obstruents and aspirated obstruents had merged in
Pre-Anatolian. So the outcome is the same. For the earlier question, the
Greek and Latin outcomes are discussed in detail in e.g. Ernount-Meillet,
Chantraine, etc., the standard Latin and Greek etym. dictionaries. The
connection actually goes back to Juret. Sorry I can't quote the
details,which are convinicing,off the the top of my head, and I don't
generally go to ref. books for these postings. BTW, Latin outcome of IE
*gwous should be *vos, but it is, like the Greek bous, bos. Contributory
here are both dialect forms and the convergence with Latin vos "you (pl.)"
hat would have resulted. W. Winter's article in in the '50's Journal of the
LSA. The refs. are for sure in Tischler's Hittitisches eymologisches Glossar.
	YLA