Brent:
>I'm slightly bothered by the paucity of prefixes in PIE. The
>only other prefix that I know of offhand is the negative *n-.
Phil (Exu):
> How about s-, the s-called "s mobile".
I'm also dismayed by the rarity of prefixes and it seems apparent
that IE was strongly a suffixal language overall. This is why
I find myself rejecting Jens hypothesis of a consonantal *O (?)
prefix, gone methatesized infix (as if this is a phenomenon
elsewhere outside of simply finding a lame solution to the
origins of nominal o-grading). It is very unnecessary and,
well, I'll say it if no one else will, contrived. I can't help
it. It's contrived with a capital cee.
By the way, the *s-mobile is not a prefix since a prefix last
time I checked is a morpheme and a morpheme has meaning. Well,
*s- has no meaning at all. It has never been found to have a
morphological raison d'etre. Hence, my theory involving a
more intimate Semitic influence than previously imagined: The
seemingly redundant *s-, while having no use in IE, is in
fact the causitive suffix in Semitic. Afterall, with multiple
borrowings both with and without the Semitic causitive, Mid
IE would have become replete with minimal verb pairs with or
without *s-, and with similar meanings. Verbs such as *ter-
and *ster- for example. Over time, it would be natural for
the *s- to appear to IE speakers as redundant, optional or
to be used perhaps when intensifying the action. We do this
in different ways in English. I can think of "swing" versus
"SHWING!". Perhaps that makes sh- a prefix in English?
I don't see a more valid explanation yet for *s-, but I'm
certainly tired of people calling it a prefix when it has
no function whatsoever. No doubt many will continue in vane
to supply some nugget of meaning to the otherwise meaningless
pseudo-prefix despite Brent's natural observation of true
IE morphology which steered away from prefixes as much as
Turkish does today.
= gLeN