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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "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). In practice, Caland is defined in purely functional
> terms which gives it a touch of mysticism that exempts it from
> normal procedures of checking. I think it's the closest this field
> ever got to voodoo.
>

In other words, the Caland system differs from the rest of IE in
time, not space. How do you know that? Suppose I were to tell you
that English has X-system, which is characterised by the suffixes -
ate, -ation, -able which are the result of some very old derivations
in English, but they are _not_ loanwords?

Torsten