It seems Proto-Slavic had both *-ikU(-icI)/*-ika(-ica) < *-eik- and *-
ikU(-icI)/*-ika(-ica) < *-i:k-, and probably it's the *-i:k- < *-eik-
that is an apophonic variant of *-Ic- (< *-Ik- < *-ik-).
Indeed, Baltic has -i:k- (cf. Lith. dial. broty~kas 'little brother',
OPruss. brati:kai N.pl. 'brothers', Latv. ma:ti:ca 'mother-in-law'),
and sometimes this -i:k- has a direct counterpart in Slavic (*brat(r)
ikU 'liitle brother').
On the other hand, Baltic has -eik-, and it seemes it's -eik- only
(and not -i:k-) that alternates with -ik-: cf. jauneika` and
jauni`kis 'bridegroom' (<~ jáunas 'young'), júodeikis and
júodikis 'black (= made of blood) soup' (<~ júodas 'black'), also
Lith. suffix -inykas < -in-ik-as and its Latvian counterpart -(i)
nieks < -in-eik-as. If so, it seemes reasonable to explain the Slavic
alternation *-Ic- : -ic- (as in *agnIcI : *agnicI 'lamb') as
continuing older *-ik- : *-eik-.
Sergei
--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 23:32:01 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
wrote:
>
> >The Latin diminutive suffix -icus is etymologically related to
Slavic -IcI (<
> >*-ikos).
>
> On second thoughts, it can't be. The Latin has -i:cus (judging by
Catalan -ic,
> not *-ec), so it may be related to Slavic -ica (whether < *-i:k-a:
or *-eik-a:),
> but not [directly] to Slavic -IcI/-Ica/-Ice (< *-ik-). Another odd
thing is
> that these dimunitive suffixes contain *k (**q) (Slavic, Indo-
Iranian /k/), not
> *k^ (**k).
>
> Where would be a good place to read up on PIE diminutives?
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...