Re: IE Pots and Pans (Was: Back to Slava)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> On 05-02-17 11:30, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Or inversely, that -o:n in *tek^þ-o:n etc is the Hoffmann suffix

(but

> > then length is unexplained), and the present participle is the
> > extension of that with the demonstrative particle nom.m.f.sg.

*so,

> > oblique *to (+ further suffixes).
>
> No, the pres.part. ending shows no trace of a laryngeal. There are

also

> some subtle differences concerning the quality of the vowel (*e ~

*o

> variation in the pres.part. versus stable *o in the Hoffmann

suffix)

But has the Hoffmann suffix been put to the test, ie. does it occur
in environments where an ablaut vowel would produce -e-?

>and the compound-like behaviour of Hoffmann stems.

-nt-ia in Latin makes the pres. part. a compound stem.

>Also, *-e/on(t)- is
> attached to verb roots,

*-m-ent-? *-w-ent-?

>while the Hoffmann suffix forms nouns and
> adjectives exclusively from nouns. To be sure, we also have the
> "individualising" suffix *-on(t)- (the one which accounts for a

large

> number of Germanic weak nouns, including hypocoristically

abbreviated

> names like Odo and Hugo). Opinions vary as to whether it's
> etymologically related to the pres.part. suffix. It's also formally
> distinct from the Hoffmann suffix, but confusible with it: in some

cases

> it's hard to decide which one of the two was originally involved.

May I conclude: three different, but confusible suffixes?


Torsten