Return to Answer

A good question.

• Assimilation (voice): * tagto > * takto. This is a common phenomenon, cf. scribo-scripsi, veho-vixi etc. (see e.g. Weiss, p. 188, I.1);

• With dico, there's nothing unusual: diksi, dikto;

• With struo: k was inserted there analogically. Verbs ending in a labiovelar (k^w, g^w) follow this pattern:

1. "the labial element of a labiovelar is deleted before a consonant" (Weiss, p. 188)

coquo- coxi, unguo - unxi

2. "Labial and velar stops are devoiced and deaspirated before a voiceless obstruent" (Weiss, p. 188) - in other words, our voice assimilation again:

unguo - unxi

fivo (i.e. figo) - fixi

fluo - fluxi

coniveo - conixi

(Examples taken from Tronskii 1960, pp. 260-261).

Remember that *PIE g^w > Lat. u̯ (unless after a nasal).

So, this rule applied - by analogy - to some verbs without a labiovelar, e.g. vivo-vixi or struo-struxi.

cf. Weiss "[a]lterations caused by the differing outcomes of the voiced labiovelars in prevocalic and preconsonantal position would lead to an alternation -u̯-V ~ -kT-" (p. 441).

A good question.

• Assimilation (voice): * tagto > * takto. This is a common phenomenon, cf. scribo-scripsi, veho-vixi etc. (see e.g. Weiss, p. 188, I.1);

• With dico, there's nothing unusual: diksi, dikto;

• With struo: k was inserted there analogically. Verbs ending in a labiovelar (k^w, g^w) follow this pattern:

1. "the labial element of a labiovelar is deleted before a consonant" (Weiss, p. 188)

coquo- coxi, unguo - unxi

2. "Labial and velar stops are devoiced and deaspirated before a voiceless obstruent" (Weiss, p. 188) - in other words, our voice assimilation again:

unguo - unxi

fivo (i.e. figo) - fixi

fluo - fluxi

coniveo - conixi

(Examples taken from Tronskii 1960, pp. 260-261).

Remember that *PIE g^w > Lat. u̯ (unless after a nasal).

So, this rule applied - by analogy - to some verbs without a labiovelar, e.g. vivo-vixi or struo-struxi.

cf. Weiss "[a]lterations caused by the differing outcomes of the voiced labiovelars in prevocalic and preconsonantal position would lead to an alternation -u̯-V ~ -kT-" (p. 441)

or Meiser 1998:

A good question.

• Assimilation (voice): * tagto > * takto. This is a common phenomenon, cf. scribo-scripsi, veho-vixi etc. (see e.g. Weiss, p. 188, I.1);

• With dico, there's nothing unusual: diksi, dikto;

• With struo: k was inserted there analogically. Verbs ending in a labiovelar (k^w, g^w) follow this pattern:

1. "the labial element of a labiovelar is deleted before a consonant" (Weiss, p. 188)

coquo- coxi, unguo - unxi

2. "Labial and velar stops are devoiced and deaspirated before a voiceless obstruent" (Weiss, p. 188) - in other words, our voice assimilation again:

unguo - unxi

fivo (i.e. figo) - fixi, remember that PIE *g^w > Lat. u̯ (unless after a nasal).

So, this rule applied - by analogy - to some verbs without a labiovelar, e.g. vivo-vixi or struo-struxi.

cf. Weiss "[a]lterations caused by the differing outcomes of the voiced labiovelars in prevocalic and preconsonantal position would lead to an alternation -u̯-V ~ -kT-" (p. 441).

A good question.

• Assimilation (voice): * tagto > * takto. This is a common phenomenon, cf. scribo-scripsi, veho-vixi etc. (see e.g. Weiss, p. 188, I.1);

• With dico, there's nothing unusual: diksi, dikto;

• With struo: k was inserted there analogically. Verbs ending in a labiovelar (k^w, g^w) follow this pattern:

1. "the labial element of a labiovelar is deleted before a consonant" (Weiss, p. 188)

coquo- coxi, unguo - unxi

2. "Labial and velar stops are devoiced and deaspirated before a voiceless obstruent" (Weiss, p. 188) - in other words, our voice assimilation again:

unguo - unxi

fivo (i.e. figo) - fixi

fluo - fluxi

coniveo - conixi

(Examples taken from Tronskii 1960, pp. 260-261).

Remember that *PIE g^w > Lat. u̯ (unless after a nasal).

So, this rule applied - by analogy - to some verbs without a labiovelar, e.g. vivo-vixi or struo-struxi.

cf. Weiss "[a]lterations caused by the differing outcomes of the voiced labiovelars in prevocalic and preconsonantal position would lead to an alternation -u̯-V ~ -kT-" (p. 441).

A good question.

• Assimilation (voice): * tagto > * takto. This is a common phenomenon, cf. scribo-scripsi, veho-vixi etc. (see e.g. Weiss, p. 188, I.1);

• With dico, there's nothing unusual: diksi, dikto;

• With struo: k was inserted there analogically. Verbs ending in a labiovelar (kw, gw) follow this pattern:

1. "the labial element of a labiovelar is deleted before a consonant" (Weiss, p. 188)

coquo- coxi, unguo - unxi

2. "Labial and velar stops are devoiced and deaspirated before a voiceless obstruent" (Weiss, p. 188) - in other words, our voice assimilation again:

unguo - unxi, fivo (i.e. figo) - fixi

So, this rule applied - by analogy - to some verbs without a labiovelar, e.g. vivo-vixi or struo-struxi.

cf. Weiss "[a]lterations caused by the differing outcomes of the voiced labiovelars in prevocalic and preconsonantal position would lead to an alternation -u̯-V ~ -kT-" (p. 441).

A good question.

• Assimilation (voice): * tagto > * takto. This is a common phenomenon, cf. scribo-scripsi, veho-vixi etc. (see e.g. Weiss, p. 188, I.1);

• With dico, there's nothing unusual: diksi, dikto;

• With struo: k was inserted there analogically. Verbs ending in a labiovelar (k^w, g^w) follow this pattern:

1. "the labial element of a labiovelar is deleted before a consonant" (Weiss, p. 188)

coquo- coxi, unguo - unxi

2. "Labial and velar stops are devoiced and deaspirated before a voiceless obstruent" (Weiss, p. 188) - in other words, our voice assimilation again:

unguo - unxi 

fivo (i.e. figo) - fixi, remember that PIE *g^w > Lat. u̯ (unless after a nasal).

So, this rule applied - by analogy - to some verbs without a labiovelar, e.g. vivo-vixi or struo-struxi.

cf. Weiss "[a]lterations caused by the differing outcomes of the voiced labiovelars in prevocalic and preconsonantal position would lead to an alternation -u̯-V ~ -kT-" (p. 441).