From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 11147
Date: 2001-11-15
>From: Miguel Carrasquer VidalAnd from where I'm standing, **h2ag^n > **h2agr. Possibly what we
>
>>> Anttila connects <aga-> (*'contest, game') as in <aga-klutos> with <ago:n>, regarding the latter as originally collective.
>
>> But in any case a masculine collective.
>
>Secondarily "animatised". The original neuter would have been *h2ag^n, cf. <to kHeima : ho kHeimo:n>.
>> Yes. I wanted to mention that. The feminine ending *-ih2 (like the thematic ending *-os) is often found after an *-r which by by the heteroclitic rule must come from *-n. [The same, BTW, goes for the *-s that comes from *-t(W) (e.g. the pf.act.ptc. *-us-ih2)]. Both *-ih2 and *-os can be regarded as postponed (p)articles that were not univerbated until after the working of the heteroclitic rule. So indeed the effect of the Auslaut-rule *-n > *-r can sometimes be seen in what appears to be an Inlaut position. But I'm not sure whether it's necessary to include here a form like <ageiro:>.Funny you should mention that, I was just breaking my head over the
>
>What puzzles me a little is what exactly those (p)articles were attached to. For example, *-wer-ih2 is hard to analyse as *-wer#-ih2, since *-wer does not occur independently. It looks more like word-formation (affecting the ablaut of the base) than banal agglutination.