[tied] Re: -ishte, -eshte

--- In cybalist@..., alexmoeller@... wrote:

> [Moeller] hmmm.. I try to make a connection. When you say in
> joke using foreign word romanian you will use the romanian
> sufixes
> rus. gavariti:govoresc, govoreshti, govoreshte, govorim,
> govoriti, govoresc
> germ. sprechen: sprehãnesc, sprehãneshti, sprehãneste,
> shprehãnim, shprehâniti, shprehãnesc
> eng: talk: tolkuiesc, tãlcuieshti and so on. ( strange in
> romanian is a word tâlc=sense, meaning, supposed to come from
> slav tlUkU)
> It shows from these example that a population when "loan"
> words adaptate these loans to its own way to speak. And in
> this case I will say, if someone got latin or slavic words
> "modified" them for his way to speak. But that will mean that
> these sufixes are indigens.. or that they developed paralel
> from PIE. Is there a ideea about?

As George has been hinting, the -sc- / -$t- part of the suffix has
been in the language for at least 5,000 years. It goes all the way
back to PIE. The Romance languages (but not Classical Latin) have
incorporated it into the '-ire' conjugation. Before that it was a
suffix used to form the present stem of the verb (the stem from which
the present and imperfect were made), often to refer to a change of
state. For example, Latin 'florescere' = 'to start to flower', but
past tense 'floruit' = 'he flowered'. There is a brief account of
its use in PIE in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/files/PIE%
20Morphology/Verbs.html . This IE -sk- suffix, extended by a linking
vowel, seems to have been productive in Latin, but not in Greek or
Sanskrit.

Richard.