Re: [tied] The Hoffmann suffix

On 05-02-19 17:56, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> 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.

Yes, and I wonder why practically everybody ignores that. Have you got
any fresh ideas about the derivation of *h1oiHno- (or was it something
like *h1ei-H(o)n-/*h1oino-)?

> 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?

I'd be more sorry do give up the first group, since they have clearly
Hoffmannian cognates outside Slavic. Perhaps we are dealing with two
types corresponding to Germanic *-i:n-/*-jo:n-, i.e. different
levellings of the same original paradigm, thematised in (Balto-)Slavic.
I suppose nom.sg. *-ih3ó:n would have ended up as *-i~ (via *-ju:~),
thus falling together with the other type, except for the accent. That
might have influenced the vocalism of the other cases.

> 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-?

It's interesting, and requires some more thinking.

Piotr