--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:44:32 +0100 (MET), Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >And it is not only in adjective stems we observe reductions
> >of *-Ce/o- to *-e/o- (and further *-i-), we see something of the
kind at
> >the end of compounds too (*newo-g^nH3ó-s for **-g^nH3-tó-s).
>
> Would you say that the variation *-ós ~ *-tós in (most) ordinals
> illustrates the same phenomenon?
No, I see no connection. My impression of the ordinals is that
Szemerényi's analysis was correct: The morpheme is *-o- (thematic
vowel), but metanalysis of *dek^mt-o-s led to a new morpheme *-to-
which had at least spread to 'fifth' before the dissolution of the
protolanguage. That appears to be a totally different story.
[...]
> But what of the other half of the problem? The alternation r/m,
for
> instance, which (according to Collinge) was part of Caland's
original
> treatment (Avest. xrvi- vs. xru:ma-, xru:ra-, Av. tiGra- vs. Skt.
tigma-).
> If any *-Co- (or *-o-) will do as a source for *-i- in compounds
(and
> comparatives), then that's only a solution for half the problem.
It does
> not explain why *-mó- and *-ró- themselves alternate in these
words (nor,
> for instance, what the alternation of u-stem adjectives and ró-
adjectives
> is all about).
There is no alternation of *-ro- and *-mo- except in formations
where they have lost their meaning. There is an alternation between
*-ro and *-u- which both form adjectives. One could say they form
positives. The two are distributed in what looks like the ruins of
older complementary distribution: If the syllabic nucleus is a
sonant, the suffix is *-u-; if the nucleus is a vocoid it takes *-ro-
. There are some cases of doublets, but Brugmann's sizable list can
really be arranged to show this. I suspect that the origin of *-ro-
and *-u- is ultimately the same and that, under the relevant
phonotactic conditions, *-u- is the phonetic representative of both
*-ro- and *-i-.
The suffixes *-mo- and *-no- alternate when from *-mn-o-, originally
distributed by a dissimilatory principle seen by Johannes Schmidt: *-
no- if a labial precedes on the word, otherwise *-mo-. In the
passive participle, however, *-no- alternates with *-to-, a fact one
would like to connect with the active participle *-ent- of which it
is perhaps an adjectival derivative.
So adjectives in *-mo- (*-no-) would mean "pertaining to an act of -
ing", i.e. something not very different from a simple primary
adjective which could be construed to mean
approximately "characteristic of anything about which the root ...
can be used". I would rank the coexistence of *tig-i- and tigma- as
coincidental, the real connection being between *tig-i- and tig-ra-.
I would also discount the connection between Av. b&r&z-i- and b&r&z-
ant-, Ved. brhant- 'high', the real connection being with *bhrg^h-ró-
(which however should have been *bhrg^h-ú-, as in part it is). I
consider the nt-form the participle of a stative verb, i.e. *bhrg^h-
h1-ént-, i.e. much like Lat. rube:ns beside ruber.
The original meaning of the participial suffix *-to- (*-no-), if
correctly analyzed, would be "pertaining to the author of an act of -
ing". What a "taker" has is "taken".
I do not believe the comparative and the superlative formations have
anything to do with the "Caland" reductions (as I would like to call
them). The meaning of the comp. and sup. suffixes may include the
notion of adjective, so there is perhaps no need for an
adjectivizing marker. And if the marker is one of positive degree it
is not even intended.
Now, all of this is "reconstructive rather than descriptive" (I've
forgotten who said that) even when applied to the protolanguage. It
accounts for the connections between some very archaic derivatives
which are old enough to have undergone some very old processes of
phonetic changes. They have been overgrown by a host of later
formations that did not abide by the same sound rules simply because
the changes they reflect were over. That of course makes it a
difficult and insecure undertaking to try and uncover the changes
and the system they worked on. But, while we may have some hope of
verifying the regular phonetic changes involved, if instead we put
up a scenario in purely functional terms we do not have a prayer.
Jens