Re: [tied] Bader's article on *-os(y)o

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:

> Jumping in...
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
>
> > The idea is this:
> >
> > The stem of the IE verb reflects an agent noun: Ved. hánmi 'I

kill'

> > contains the same stem as vrtra-hán- 'killer of Vrtra', so

*gWhen-

> > m+i is properly "a killer (am) I".
>
> Okay, so where were the actual verbs in Pre-PIE? Or is it

supposed

> that there was no clear line between verbs and nouns?

I have been asked that question before, Were there then no real
verbs? I want to warn against a pitfall here: It does not follow
that the prestage we come back to did not have any verbs. The old
finite verbs are practically gone in Hindi, but that does not mean
that Sanskrit did not have any. This may be a comparable story, but
I wouldn't know.

>
> > With some root structures the agent noun of this short type has

an

> > extension in *-t-, as Ved. soma-kr-t- 'make of soma'. The 3sg

form

> > of the aorist ákar from *kWer-t will then have meant "a maker

(was

> > he)". The passive participle in *-to- must be an adjectival
> > derivative from this: *kWr-t-ó- "belonging to a maker, what a

maker

> > has, what a maker has made, made".
> >
> > Other roots (or root structures?) form the agent noun as an n-

stem.

> > Thus Avest. spasan-, OHG spehho 'scout', OLat. as-se:do:, -
> > o:nis 'assessor', OHG man-ezzo 'cannibal'. Some of these form

ppp

> in
> > *-no-, Ved. ptc. sanná-, sbst. ánna-m 'food'.
>
> So, then, what did the *-ó element originally mean?

"Belonging to -, characterized by -".

Jens