Re: The Hoffmann suffix

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>

wrote:

>
> > so perhaps Latin -io:, -ion- is a compromise?
>
> -io:, -io:n-, actually, with nom.sg. -o:(n) generalised, which is

what

> Latin normally does. Originally, the oblique variant was *-i-h3n- >
> -i:n- (visible elsewhere in Italic). This is also one possible

source

> of Germanic weak stems in *-i:n- (generalising the weak variant,

while

> the strong cases yield *-j-o:n-). Cf. Lat communio:, Goth. gamainei
> (gen. -eins) < *kom-moini-h3(o)n-.
>

Gothic has wato, watins "water". Is this the Hoffmann suffix, and if
so, what is it doing in a paradigm that is heteroclitic elsewhere
-er, -in- etc? Are there two 'nominatives', one in -o:, one in -er,
or is the latter a 'forgotten case'?

Torsten