Re: [tied] The Hoffmann suffix

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:19:54 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
>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-)?

Well, that's a thought. Baltic -ie- and Slavic -i- normally
point to *-ei- (and acute *-íe-, *-i"- to *-eiH-). The
i-stem derived Hoffmann suffix I proposed below would have
been *(h1)éi-Hn-os "that which has *(h1)ei". Unfortunately,
the parallel o-stem derived *i-Hón-os isn't very helpful.

>> 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.

Sounds possible, but I'd need to think about it more.

>> 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.

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