Order of verb affixes

[Rory M Larson]

John wrote:
> It looks like there is at least a good chance that the o-initial is part
> of the stem, but it also seems that all of the MV languages treat it as a
> locative.

Thanks for looking this up, John, and thanks to Bob and Ardis
for their comments.

So to summarize, it appears that the proto MVS verb *ohaN,
'to cook', may be a unitary lexical item in which the initial
*o- is part of the root rather than the locative prefix *o-.
In OP and many or all of the present MVS languages, however,
the initial *o- has been (re)analyzed as the locative prefix
*o- such that affixed pronouns in OP are generally inserted
between the *o- (u-) and the -haN, so that OP uhaN' conjugates
in the same way as any other (locative prefix) u- verb.

This brings us back to my original question about IO.  If
the IO word for 'pepper' is formed of the same elements as
the word in OP, except that it places the affixed reciprocal
pronoun in front of the uhaN rather than between the u- and
the -haN as in OP, then does that mean that IO normally
places the affixed pronouns in front of the *o- in other
(locative prefix) *o- verbs?  If not, isn't that evidence
that IO preserves an older grammatical pattern in which
*ohaN is still recognized as a unitary root?

Rory