Re: [tied] -e$te [was:expresion]

----- Original Message -----

From: alexmoeller@...

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 6:58 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] -e$te [was:expresion]

> A. Graur, another lingvist shows that for the origin of this suffix (-esc) must be looked in thracian, because the latin sufix -iscus, like the greek suffix  -iskos, makes o n l y diminiutives.But in thracian, -isk appears in name of toponyms and in antroponyms too and , it makes  adjectives which shows the origin and the relation of belonging to,  exactly like in romanian.

 

 

Exactly as in Germanic and Slavic. Thracian might have had it too, but Thracian influence does not explain the popularity of adjective-forming <-iscum> outside the Balkans (esp. It. -esco), while Germanic influence on early Romance is undeniable and Slavic influence in the Balkans may additionally account for a number of Romanian words in <-esc>. By the way, I'd appreciate some concrete examples of this diminutive <-iscus> from Classical Latin, since I can't think of any (except for obvious Greek loans like <obeliscus> or <asteriscus>.

 

 

> Some examples of thracian toponyms: Ciniscus, Clementianesce Names: Coriscus, Etriscus, Laiscus, Lo(i)scus, Saturisc(us) Adjectives: daciscus, thraciscus, balisca vitis

> After Bonfante, this suffix should be illyrian and the presence of it in thracian should be explained due a illiric substrate.

An Illyrian substrate in Thracian? That's "per ignotum" squared. Languages we know next to nothing about are very convenient. We can attribute almost anything to them, and who can prove we're wrong? ;)

 

Piotr