>Lat. onustus 'burdened' (cf. Gk. onostos 'to be
> blamed'), venustus 'lovely' (there was an Alpine tribe called the
> Venostes beside the Veneti), <honestus> and other similar ones. These
> can be understood as *-eto- formations blended with *-os/*-es-.
Pardon me if I'm being slow. Can we discount the influence of the
nominatives onus and Venus here? Why can it not be a formation within
Latin, based on Latin elements: the noun onus, Venus, etc, plus the
usual -tus < *-tos participle/adjective ending?
But by
> far the most regular type of Latin adjectives related to verbs in
> *-eh1-, *-eh1-sk^e/o- and to *es-stem nouns contains those in <-idus>,
This pattern is well known and widespread, but unexplained. It is worth
noting that these nouns with nom -or, gen -o:ris, are not neuter but
masculine (I think without exception). Neuters from an original *-os also
exist: eg frigus (n) beside frigor (m) but the commonest pattern by far is
: verb in -eo, masculine noun in -or-, adj in -idus. These masculine -or
nouns are widespead in Latin though rare in other languages, and many are
likely to be innovations within Latin, rather than inherited. Does that
mean the complex of -eo verb, -or noun, -idus adj could also be a purely
Latin innovation?
> ... a voiceless fricative (of a "thorny" kind)
Before positing new phonemes, should we not explore further the possibility
of patterning among existing phonemes, along the lines of Jens's theory of
the *s/*t/*h1 morpho-phonological complex, which you mention? Does such a
pattern have to have a phonological basis? And if it's a Latin innovation,
might not the existence of a mere two or three inherited forms have provided
an origin for this widespread pattern?
Peter