[tied] Re: PIE Word Formation Q&A (1)

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

>
> On 2006-03-30 00:06, gleyink wrote:
>
> > Are there any examples of a PIE prefix that
> > CANNOT be plausibly derived from an independent lexeme? If not,
> > the "usual negative answer" is, I suppose, a semi-accurate

reflection

> > of this state of affairs.
>
> Jens's O-fix is one possible example, although, for obvious

reasons, any

> guesses about its ultimate origin are pure speculation at the

present

> state of our knowledge. At the very least, it has no obvious

etymology,

> and it does play a grammatical function (forming

causative/iterative

> verbs). I wonder if the mysterious prefix *o- that appears here

and

> there, as in *o-hwi-o-m 'egg', o-sd-o-s 'perch' (if in fact

related to

> *sed-) or *o-tl(h2)-o-s (Gk. otlos 'suffering', from *telh2- 'bear

[fig.

> suffer]') is the same thing. It's remarkable to what extent the

effects

> produced by the "Rasmussen *O" resemble compositional reduction:

the

> Saussurean loss of laryngeals is analogous to what normally

happens in

> the second element of compounds; ditto the simplification of

consonant

> clusters (as in *tormos < O-trh1-mn-o-), cf. RV vira-ps'-a- (<
> *-pk^w-o-). This _may_ be pure convergence, but still the

similarity is

> striking.
>

But wouldn't one observe the same if -o- was the result of
decomposing compounds, where the original compounding would produce
the same compositional reduction? (Kortlandt, I believe)


Torsten