Re: pessimus, maximus, optimus

On 2008-10-09 22:17, Joao S. Lopes wrote:

> What were the phonetical shifts the worked in development of Latin
> superlatives maximus, pessimus, optimus?
>
> pessimus< *ped-temos cf. peior < *ped-yo:s

Superl. *ped-tm.mo- beside comp. *ped-jos-. The initial *t of the suffix
is apparently a secondary addition to *-(m.)mo-, like contrastive
*-ero-/*-tero-, resulting from some sort of reanalysis.

> maximus < *magi-semos< *?, cf. maior < *mag-yo:s

*mag-is- (the comparative stem) extended with *-m.mo-; this *-ism.mo- is
an Italo-Celtic innovation. The double /-ss-/ of superlatives in
<-issimus> is said to be expressive, but adjectives in <-er> have
*-r-is-m.mo- > *-ersomo- > -errimus; and those in <-ilis> have
*-l-is-m.mo- > *-ilsomo- > -illimus.

> And how about minor and minimus?
> minor < *min-(w)-o:s, *min-yo:s ?
> minimus < *min-emo-? *minu-mo- ? (cf. summus < *sup-mos)

A strange restructuring of *minw-ios-/*minw-is-, possibly under the
analogical influence of *pleh1-jos- > *ple:o:s before it was replaced by
*pleu-is- (from *pleh1-u-) > *plowis > plu:s. As the reformed
comparative was analysed as *min-os-, the superlative *min-m.mo- was
derived from the truncated base *min-.

Piotr