Re: [tied] The Hoffmann suffix

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:28:49 +0000, Piotr Gasiorowski
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>On 05-02-18 21:45, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> There are several suffixes -in- in Slavic. An
>> individualizing (-jan)-inU to make names of inhabitants
>> [where -in- is dropped in the plural], a singulative -ina
>> (R. kartofelina "a single potato"), an augmentative -ina (R.
>> dom -> domina), a deadjectival abstract noun formant -ina
>> (R. glubina, tishina), and a possessive adjective suffix
>> -in- made from feminine nouns (R. materin-, Nadin-, etc.)
>> [the last two are usually circumflex -i~n-, the others acute
>> -i"n-].
>>
>> What are the etymologies?
>
>The suffix -ina occurring in terms for various kinds of meet and other
>foodstuffs (e.g. *teleNt-ina- 'veal', svin-ina 'pork', cf. Lat.
>fari:na) is probably Hoffmannian, since the meaning of such words can
>be analysed semantically as 'a mass/lot/load of something'. Possessive
>*-in- seems to belong here as well, cf. Lat. di:vi:nus, which I'd
>analyse (following Olsen, more or less) as *deiwi-h3n-o- 'under the
>protection of a *deiwos; in a god's charge'.
>
>Individualising (and augmentative?) *-inU most likely has to do with
>*inU 'one', i.e. PIE *Hoi(H)no- (how to cut _that_ up morphologically
>is also a problem awaiting a good solution).
>
>Im less sure about the -ina of abstract nouns. It may be ultimately
>Hoffmannian (words like *gloNbina 'depth' refer to places as well as
>abstract qualities, which makes them similar to *berzina etc.). But
>there's also the dialectal variant -izna (R. muz^c^ina : Pol.
>me,z.czyzna 'man, a male' [< 'the male kind']), however we should
>analyse it (a contamination of *-i-h3n-ah3 with *-snah2 ?).

Accentologically, Dybo and Zaliznjak cut them up into three
groups:

(1) -i~na (-) [deadjectival abstract nouns; (->) in Old
Russian (Zaliznjak)]

(2) -i"na (+) [all others, including teleNtina, berzina] and
singulative -i"nU (+)

(3) adjectival -i~n- (->) (except -i"n- (+) when made from
i-stems [Zaliznjak]).

The split between (1) and (3) is questionable (apparently
based on S^tokavian, where deadjectivals in -ina are always
mobile, independently of the a.p. of the base noun).

It seems that deadjectival -i~na and adjectival -i~n-, if
they are both Hoffmannian, must come from *-i-Hón-o-
(*-i-Hn-o- would have given acute).

I agree that singulative -i"nU is most likely connected to
*(ed-)i"nU "one", for which we have to assume a form
*h1oiHnos in PBS (without de Saussure's other law), to
explain the acute.

The animal and plant noun derivatives in -i"na (teleNtina,
berzina) are a bit a problem, because if they are
Hoffmannian, it is strange that the suffix gave two
different thematic formations in Slavic, *-iHno- and
*-iHono-. What could the reason be, or do we have to
explain one of the two in non-Hoffmannian terms?

The exception regarding adjectives which are i-stem
derivatives (OR. gostínU, -a, -o; zvêrínU, -a, -o; golubínU,
-a, -o; los^adínU, -a, -o) is also curious. Apparently, it
matters whether the -i- comes from i-stem *-(e)i- (-> acute)
or from, assuming the Copenhagen interpretation is correct,
a reduction of the thematic vowel [*deiwi-H(o)n-] (->
circumflex). *-éi-H-n- vs. *-i-Hón-?


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...