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

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:23:07 +0000, elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> OK. I'll try one more time.
>>
>> Suppose there was a phonetic split that caused an adjectival
>> suffix, whatever its original shape, to split into two.
>
>Exactly, that's the way I see it too.

Well, I don't quite see it that way. We are agreed there was a split, but
I prefer to see it as a basically morphological split, with some adjectives
remaining athematic (*-ús, *-úr, *-uíh2), others becoming thematic (*-rós,
*-róm, *-rah2). Your suggestion that the choice was phonetically motivated
is interesting, and probably true.

>[...]
>
>I have reproduced your third possibility only because that is the
>one I will comment upon because I believe it reflects the truth. The
>reason you can't see a semantic connection between *-ro- and *-u- is
>probably because the semantic content is zero in both. But that
>makes them synonymous, and that ought to be enough for one of them
>to encroach upon the other. I do not think adjective derivation by
>suffixal -i-, -no- or -mo- was productive in PIE (or whatever late
>pre-PIE period is relevant here), so we do not have to explain why
>we do not find these bursting loose.

I don't believe it. According to my Russian grammar, -n- (*-no-) is still
productive in Russian, so how could it have stopped being productive in
PIE?

>On the other hand primary
>adjectives in -u- and -ro- were plentiful, and by back-formation
>from the comparative or superlative where the suffixes are not
>present both would be equally obvious, once the original rule of
>complementary distribution had been lost memory of. That must have
>led to cases of irregular forms, but apparently not to so many that
>the rule cannot be sensed through the later noise. By my impression
>of analogical change in languages this looks like just about
>standard procedure.

Well, even if we don't agree (I go for possibility #4), I still hope that
my insisting (once I had managed to get my point across) has been of some
help. I think you were presenting your view on the *-u / *-ro adjectives
as if "possibility #1" applied, when what you really meant was "possibility
#3". Thanks for clarifying that.


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