Re: [tied] PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> > I would be glad to talk on some other examples.
> >
>
> Be my guest. Here are some typical examples of *-ró- with
> quasi-participial meanings (in most cases indistinguishable from

those

> of *-tó-/*-nó-, though sometimes with some extra adjectival

strength):

>
> *puH-ró- 'cleansed' (Lat. pu:rus) beside *puH-tó- (Skt. pu:tá-)

from

> *peuH- 'clean, purify'.
>
> *(H)is&1-ró- 'vigorous, powerful' (Skt. is.irá-, Gk.

hierós 'filled with

> divine power', presumably also the Thracian hydronym Istros 'the

Danube'

> and many similar river-names) from the root of Skt. is.n.á:ti,

ís.yati

> 'urge, set in motion' (< *is-né-h1-, *is(h1)-jé-), beside *is&1-tó-

> (Skt. is.itá- 'urged').
>
> *mik^-ró- 'mixed' (Lith. mis^ras, Skt. mis'rá-) from *meik^- 'mix'.
>
> *bHudH-ró- 'vigilant, waking' (Lith. budrus, OCS bUdrU 'cheerful,
> fresh', Av. -buDra-) beside *bHudH-tó- (Skt. buddHá-) from *bHeudH-

> 'observe, be awake'.
>
> *h2ug-ró- 'big, powerful' (Skt. ugrá-, Av. ugra-) from *h2aug-

'grow'.

>
> *ksud-ró- 'small, broken into small pieces' (Skt. ks.udrá- beside
> ks.un.n.á- < *ksud-nó- 'pulverised') from *kseud- 'crush' (cf.

Slavic

> xudU 'meagre' < *ksoud-o-).
>
> *tag-ró- 'touched' (Lat. integer < *en-tagro- < *n.-tag-ro-

'untouched,

> undamaged') from *tag- 'touch'.
>
> *dHig^H-ró- 'formed, shaped' (ON digr 'stout, thick') beside

*dHigH-tó-

> (Skt. digdHá- 'smeared, anointed', Lat. fictus 'formed,

fabricated,

> feigned') from *dHeig^H- 'knead, plaster, form'.
>
> (etc.)
>
> There are also numerous substantivisations like the following:
>
> *nek^-ro- 'dead (body)' (Gk. nekrós 'corpse') from *nek^- 'perish'.
>
> *ksu-ro- 'sharpened (tool)' (Gk. ksurón, Skt. ks.urá- 'razor')

from

> *kseu- 'rub, whet'.
>
> *dHegWH-ro- 'burnt (wood)' (Gk. tépHra: 'ashes') from *dHegWH-

'burn'.


That n/r alternation looks similar to that of the heteroclitic
neuter nouns and that postulated for the 3rd pl. ending, -n(t)- vs
-r-. Is the mechanism similar, ie that the -r- was once a
word-final -n# (and after it changed a thematic vowel was added)?


Torsten