Re: [tied] The Hoffmann suffix

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 36435
Date: 2005-02-21

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 3:19 AM
Subject: 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-)?

I am wondering why *H3Vi- cannot be regarded as the ultimate basis for this word?