Reconstruction talk:Proto-Italic/opeō

Proto-Italic question: *opeō

Discussion moved from User talk:Catonif.

Hello! I am now attempting to create an entry for a Proto-Italic form (one that does have descendants in languages other than Latin) and wondered if you would be so kind as to take a look at it for me: *opeō. I tried to put all of the descendant information from De Vaan's entry in accurately; I am not sure about the inflection table, but I supposed that Umbrian "opeter" indicates that the perfect past participle stem originally was *opeto-. I have not filled in the etymology yet as the etymology De Vaan gives, from h₁ep-, seems to conflict with the etymologies given on Wikipedia on some other words that De Vaan suggests are cognate such as apō, apīscor. Urszag (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Urszag, and thank you for the good work! I hope you don't mind that I'm moving the discussion here, as it seems more appropriate. The fall of -e- in the -eto participles in Latin seems regular after a stop, as also shown by sectum, from *seketom (cf. Umbrian 𐌀𐌔𐌄𐌜𐌄𐌕𐌀 (aseçeta) < *nseketā). Elsewhere it seems to survive as -ĭtus, like in molĭtum from *meletom (cf. possibly Umbrian 𐌌𐌀𐌋𐌄𐌕𐌖 (maletu)). So the reconstruction looks good. There's also, in the w:Duenos inscription, an opetoi of unclear meaning, by some identified with this. I don't think I can help you much with the further PIE etymology sadly, looks very confusing. Catonif (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)