Re: [tied] -ishte, -eshte

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] -ishte, -eshte


> <-i$te> is Slavic *-is^c^e < *-i:sk-jo, an extended variant
of *-isko, meaning usually 'the site of a former ...', e.g.
*gordis^c^e or *gordisko 'place where a fort used to be'. Both
suffixes are for obvious reasons very common in Slavic
toponyms.
>
> <-e$te> reflects the locative case of Slavic adjectives
in -IskU (cognate to English -ish and the source of
Rom. -esc). The locative, which had adverbial functions in
Slavic, was -Is^c^e^ < *-iskoi. The extreme productivity of
this (inherited) suffix in both Slavic and Germanic dates to
very ancient times and must be some kind of areal effect.
>
> In verbs (the fourth conjugation, I think), <-$t-> is simply
the palatalised counterpart of <-sc-> before front-vowel
endings: cf. Lat. nascor > It. nascere, Rom. se na$te.

[moeller]and why not in nascoceshte? you have too sc there?
why not in scorneshte? why not in tescuieshte?, why not in
boscorodeshte?
Normaly you should have had the nashtoceshte, teshuieshte,
boshorodeshte( to speak uninteligibely) but we have
boshorogeste = to became invalid.
Even the latinist Rosetti and Graur shows that -esc,
and -isk(iskus) are thracian suffixes.So I do not see the
necesity to be slav.
And if these are so productive in german and slav and romanian
than why not PIE evolution in all. ? why slavic for all?