Re: PIE i- and u-stems again

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
wrote:

>
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:03:53 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> >On 2007-02-15 23:02, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> >
> >>>> There are no n-stems derived from thematics
> >>> What is then the relationship of catus/cato: ?
> >>
> >> One is thematic, the other is an athematic n-stem. The
> >> n-stem is not built on the thematic form: that's impossible.
> >>
> >> You *can* build thematics on consonant-stems: happened all
> >> the time.
> >
> >Well, so what's the relationship between Gk. gnátHos 'jaw' and
> >gnátHo:n 'chubby' or híppos and hippó:n 'stable, posting-house'?
> >It's quite clear to me that Hoffmann formations in *-h3on- are not
> >restricted to Tocharian, and that's one clear source of n-stems
> >derived from thematics.
> >
> >The origin of the catus/cato: type is debatable, but one distinct
> >possibility (Birgit Olsen's idea, I think) is that at least some
> >"individualising/definite" nasal stems corresponding to thematic
> >(and other) adjectives were originally -n(t)- participles of
> >stative verbs, derived in turn from adjectives (*X-h1-on(t)-
> >'[singled out as] being X'). The process is a complex one but again
> >it is eventually capable of transforming thematics into nasal
> >stems.
>
> I've never really given these matters much thought. I'm waiting for
> Birgit's book on Indo-European suffixes.

That didn't seem to stop you.

> In any case, as you'll agree, my point was that you cannot just
> stick an -n onto the thematic vowel, as Tortsen wants.

Why is it that people start misspelling my name when they lose an
argument? Before you started messing with PIE suffixes the difference
between catus and cato: was more than an *-n. You are the one who is
arguing that you can change a thematic into an n-stem by adding *-n,
not I.


Torsten