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

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:31:27 +0000, elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>Your suggestion that the choice was phonetically motivated
>> is interesting, and probably true.
>
>Then why don't you accept it?

Withdrawn or not, I can answer that question. I do accept it.
I just haven't had the time to consider its wider ramifications. Perhaps
roots of a certain phonological structure favoured thematization in more
general terms (not just *-ro).

>> 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?
>
>What is productive in Slavic is a suffix *-ino-. I'm not really
>prepared to account for its background. One type is adjectives (*-o-
>) made from locatives (*-i) with a hiatus-breaking n-insertion.

Hiatus-breaking n-insertion? That's not what B.A.O. says about *-ino: "The
type is generally assumed to have originated as *-no- derivatives based on
locatives in *-i from consonant stems" (tNiBA, p. 276).

In Slavic, we can also think of *n.no or of -Ino < *-no- directly, with a
cluster-breaking /I/ between two consecutive cononants, as in the D/I/Lpl.
of the C-stems, as required by Slavic phonotactics.


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