Re: [tied] Re: -m (-n)?

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:21:15 +0000, elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> As for the Caland system: I think it's odd that a number of IE
>roots
>> should have a separate system of suffixes. In a language like
>> English, this indicates that the roots, with their suffixes, are
>> loaned (eg. from Latin or Franch), perhaps the same is the case in
>> PIE (although the donor language may be long gone).
>
>In Indo-European it's the opposite, i.e. the "Caland system" is just
>a list of adjective-related formations created early enough to have
>undergone a series of old sound changes which did not hit younger
>derivations. However, Caland has no business in the formation of
>numerals unless the definition is changed (as it apparently
>constantly is).

The idea is that "9" is somehow related to "new", which _is_ an adjective
(presumably based on "now"). Despite the fact that the most common form is
*new-os (a simple thematic derivation from *nu(:) "now"), there are also a
number of forms with -n- (OPr nauns, neuwenen, ToB ñune), -r- (Arm. nor)
and -y- (*new-y-os in Sanskrit, Greek, Celtic, Germanic and Lithuanian).
Also -n- (and -m-?), if we count the numeral.

As I see it, the Caland system is precisely this: variation n ~ r ~ m ~ w ~
y in adjectival formations. I agree that this is the result of old sound
changes: I think we can derive all these forms from an original
adjectivizing suffix **-nV. The sound changes are then the usual [**-na >]
**-n > *-r in the (old) Auslaut, besides palatalization [**-ni > **-ny >
**-n^ > *-y] and labialization [**-nu > **-nw > **-mw > *-m ~ *-w], with
*-n- preserved in the original Inlaut.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...